From the Likely Story Department
Craig Probably Passed Toilet En Route to Flight Gate
By Nathaniel Hoffman, 9-06-07
|
|
 | |
| Click map to enlarge. | |
|
If it is a trial that Sen. Larry Craig seeks, then here is some evidence that could work in his favor. Or not.
Here’s what we know. Undercover Minneapolis vice cop Sgt. Dave Karsnia first spotted Craig at 12:13 pm on Jun 11. Karsnia sat on the john at the Northstar Crossing mall area of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport’s Lingdergh Terminal. The restroom is located just across from a large food court.
Refer to this airport map and the one above, which we will come to again in a moment.
The bathroom where Craig was arrested (circled in the map above) is located inside security, between the blue numbers “3” and “4”, near ticketing.
An “older white male with grey hair,” later identified as Craig, repeatedly peered into Karsnia’s stall through a crack for about two minutes, according to the detailed police report. Karsnia wrote that he could see Craig’s blue eyes.
The rest of the story is already well known from Boise to the Beltway.
But is it possible, despite the peeping, the foot tapping, the hand swiping, that Sen. Craig just had to use the potty? Oh, and despite Craig’s guilty plea?
Craig’s most likely arrival flight is Northwest Airlines flight 754, which leaves Boise just before 8 a.m. The plane arrived in Minneapolis at 11:51 a.m. on June 11 at gate F3, according to www.flightstats.com, a rather useful Web site that archives historical flight information. It was a few minutes late.
Twenty-two minutes later Karsnia first spotted Craig.
Now referring again to our map, there is a restroom and a restaurant right (in the green box) at gate F3 that one could use, if, say, one is afraid of airplane toilets. Or if the flight attendants had time for a second round of drinks. There is another restroom, two restaurants and a heart defibrillator station between this arrival gate and the now-famous pickup joint.
Craig would have had one hour and 14 minutes to make his presumed outgoing flight, which I will demonstrate in a moment. Assuming it takes 10 minutes to get off the plane from Boise and one would want to be at the gate a few minutes before it closes, Craig would have had about a 45 minute break between flights in Minneapolis.
In the arrest report, Craig tells Karsnia that he was worried he would miss his flight. This was sometime before Craig’s 1:05 p.m. release from police custody. Northwest 1542 to Ronald Reagan National Airport was scheduled to leave at precisely 1:05 p.m. on June 11 from gate D4. (See outgoing plane on map.)
It pushed off from the gate at 1:25, 20 minutes late, giving Craig time to board. (The flight has an average delay of 22 minutes according to www.flightstats.com, so plan accordingly.)
Again referring to our map, one can see that Craig did have to walk right by the suspect men’s room en route to his departure gate. It is plausible that he would have stopped at the can near Starbucks anyway, perhaps buy a copy of Roll Call and some gum, as he stretched his legs.
“One of the things we really do is encourage people to walk around the airport,” an MSP Airport spokeswoman told me after confirming the location of their now famous airport sex club/restroom.
So Craig could potentially argue that he did nothing out of the ordinary to seek out that bathroom, to target that stall where that not-so-lonely cop sat for a total of three minutes before being, presumably, hit on.
But in order to argue that, he’s going to have to face a whole lot of other evidence, including expert testimony from people who know about behavior in men’s rooms. Like this guy, a buddy of mine in DC who I think was the first person to tell me about the rumors surrounding Larry Craig’s sexuality years ago:
“This type of cruising represents a dying breed of gays in the states. Mostly married old men and maybe some younger repressed folks in particularly conservative states (say, like, Idaho!). But seriously, hang out in just about any fairly well trafficked public restroom and observe. This goes on a lot. I'm not sure who would be a cruising 'expert' per se (or who would admit to it!)...
...The 'technique' is easy to pick up. I've never participated in bathroom sex, but I've always paid attention to it. It's seriously common. Sit in a stall a bit longer than expected, and the feet start tapping. Seriously. Try it.”
I am not going to try it, crusading journalist that I am. And there has been plenty written about this activity already.
But can you imagine a jury trial pitting cruising experts like these guys who have been cited all week in national media reports, against a U.S. Senator? It would be the sensational trial of the century.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Add your comment below
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/clinton-supporter-arrested-in-nj-corruption-sting/
>>>>>>>>>>
September 6, 2007, 4:57 pm
Clinton Supporter Arrested in N.J. Corruption Sting
By Patrick Healy
Update: Blake Zeff, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, just e-mailed to say that Mayor Rivera stepped down from Mrs. Clinton’s Mayors Council today.
Among the 11 public officials arrested in an F.B.I. corruption sting in New Jersey today was a leading Democratic supporter of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign in that state, Mayor Samuel Rivera of Passaic.
It was the latest legal embarrassment involving an ally of the Clinton campaign, coming only one day after a wealthy Clinton donor, Norman Hsu, missed his court date in a California fraud case and apparently disappeared.
Clinton advisers this spring and summer have been aggressively touting their long list of endorsements from elected officials and prominent Democratic donors, to indicate the breadth of establishment support that Mrs. Clinton enjoys. Yet, in the case of Mr. Hsu and now Mayor Rivera, the criminal allegations indicate a cost that can come with quickly rounding up political support from far and wide.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Norman Hsu was arrested last night in Colorado. For the NJ corruption sting see: http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTcxOTE4NTkmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXky
Interpreting ambigious bathroom hand and foot movements, and deciding whether or not a person can plead guilty to a crime where the facts underlying an alleged crime may not amount to criminal behavior, don't seem as important to me as protecting the political and governing processes. With each nail in the coffin that holds the public trust and faith, how can anyone in a glass potty throw cellulose squares?
I'll address Marion's outburst first:
The cop was sent to the bathroom because there were recent complaints. From the actual story (since you couldn't read it the first time, might want to check those glasses):
Twenty-two minutes later Karsnia first spotted Craig.
Please, Marion, try not to make a fool out of yourself anymore on this topic. On second thought, no, please, keep it up, you're a source of never ending hilarity.
As for Craig, maybe this line best explains it:
But is it possible, despite the peeping, the foot tapping, the hand swiping, that Sen. Craig just had to use the potty? Oh, and despite Craig’s guilty plea?
This was pretty much meant as humor.
As for Hsu? Stop crying "b-b-b-b-b-b-but Clinton!!!!" The ethics committee refused to even review this because it was caught by her campaign and she was straightforward about it.
The Republicans have done their damndest to bring public morality and piety to the center of "the political and governing processes," and the Larry Craig spectacle is the inevitable result. The same prurience that made the strategy work so well to get Republicans elected is now keeping this story alive.
To be fair to all the supermarket tabloid readers in the audience though, Larry Craig's "political processes" have helped too, thanks to his fumble-fingering that voicemail to one of the high-priced lawyers he hired long after he needed counsel(ing).
You guys play rough over here. I'm going back to my collection of 40s & 50s high gloss Hollywood musicals, where at least we know why Gene Kelly was singin' in the rain.
Jay you are being very dishonest if you think this is ony about Clinton. Look at this list of ALL the purported recipients (can you pick out the R's in the sea of D's) of Hsu and associates related cash: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pI5QkfhRBwUgAiaAQVTXffw
By the way, what was the lesson Hillary learned from Bill about Johnny Chung?
But if you want to play that game anyway, Jack Abramoff, biotch. K-Street and it's shady deals. Why was it that during the last election when it was discovered a Republican candidate had taken contributions from Jack Abramoff was it not a huge deal? Oh, because he did exactly as Hillary did, he returned the money when Abramoff's dealings had been disclosed.
Given that the issue just came out and doesn't have anything to do with Idaho, why do you keep pounding it like a sheep you're trying to help get through a fence? Stubborn partisanship, I'd say.
I say again, "Interpreting ambigious bathroom hand and foot movements, and deciding whether or not a person can plead guilty to a crime where the facts underlying an alleged crime may not amount to criminal behavior, don't seem as important to me as protecting the political and governing processes. With each nail in the coffin that holds the public trust and faith, how can anyone in a glass potty throw cellulose squares? " In your case you have reached for the brown stuff.
http://www.friendsoftheclearwater.org/node/386
Larry Craig is a dead horse whether he admits it or not. He is finished in political life. Keep riding him if you will and achieve nothing other than playing dirty sordid partisan politics to the detriment of all. There is life after Larry Craig. What will it be?
As a matter of record, I have not "played dirty sordid partisan politics" in the last week, month, year, or my lifetime; if you want to make a fact-based claim to the contrary, knock yourself out.
I'm not attacking you, it's your behavior that I find reprehensible. If you're not prepared to set up your own forum, at least find an article that's on the topic you wish to discuss. Otherwise do plan on catching a lot of flak for being annoying.
P.S. I was a choir boy, but do not direct any. I have directed an adult choir, however.
Hyper conservatives are walking a jittery tight rope lately after spending the last 10 years relying on hypocrites to fight their moral and ethical battles for them. The problem is you all had hire a bunch of corrupt and morally bankrupt chicken hawks to fight for you because no one else would do it. You all put these guys in office, you donated to their campaigns and supported their causes every day on blogs and in coffee houses. Now eat your crow, you earned it.
"But but Clinton - -"
Now I offer my apology. I reread what I wrote I did not write what I meant. My comment about dirty sordid partisan politics was not about you per se but about the daily pounding that is occurring about a person who significance to our future is zip. He screwed up every which way from Sunday and will pay the price. The reason for an almost daily column about Larry Craig escapes me. Tom, again I apologize for my comment.
By the way in the news tonight and out on the web is a picture of Hillary and Norman Hsu standing shoulder to shoulder and smiling for the camera. Bill wasn't even there, just Hillary and Hsu.
In regard to your more immediate accusation of the "pure bullshit" of my exemplary "fatiguing and worthless behavior," go soak your head. Every time you wade in to one of these comment threads, you're trying to stir the pot, and every time you get the desired result, you act as if you're shocked, shocked at how partisan we all are. Make your best argument, and stop whining so much.
That does not change the fact that the liberal media is trying to beat this pathetic horse to death, and distract from the illegal donations to the Dems for one thing.
Bush and Ken Lay (Lay is actually the biggest overall donor to Bush's collective campaigns)
All Republican Politicians with Jack Abramoff (big money, big deals, big corruption)
Bush/Cheney and various other Repubs with Steve Griles (They actually made this scum bag a deputy secretary of the Department of Interior)
Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush Sr etc. and Saddam Husein (long time chums even though they knew he was a blood thirsty dictator. That is until they could make a ton of money from offing him)
Oh and what's with Gonzalez, Ney, Delay, Rove, Libby, Skilling and seriously countless others. Talk about dirty friends. We all know politics is dirty but gawd these guys have been floppin in the mud with no shame.
Only some of the D's are returning money or donating it to charity, and those funds are the direct Hsu funds. To my knowledge no one is giving away the "associates" contributions from the Paws and others. Why would the Paws from California, people of very modest means, be giving money to people like Jon Tester that hail from other states like Montana? Is Tester giving any of his Hsu or associates money away?
Then there are D's like Patrick Kennedy that refuse to give away any of the Hsu and associates funds.
Where did Mr. Hsu's money come from?
The issue is that Larry Craig, caught in a more than compromising situation in the public toilet, is trying to weasel out of it because he's spent so many years trying to convince the world he's sitting at God's right bower.
>>>>>>>>>>
Shadowy Money Trail of a Fugitive Fund-Raiser
By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: September 9, 2007
At the center of the ever-deepening mystery of Norman Hsu, the fugitive fund-raiser who was captured after a brief flight from the law last week, is the question of how he evolved from a bankrupt swindler in 1992 to a wealthy donor to many Democratic candidates, and a bundler of campaign contributions to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2007.
A review of financial records for one of Mr. Hsu’s companies begins to shed light on some of his recent activities, including his dealings with a circle of campaign contributors that has fallen under suspicion since news of Mr. Hsu’s criminal past, murky business interests and unexplained riches rocked the Democratic Party.
The records show that Components Ltd., a company controlled by Mr. Hsu that has no obvious business purpose and appears to exist only on paper, has paid a total of more than $100,000 to at least nine people who made campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton and others through Mr. Hsu. The payments occurred in the spring of 2003, several months before Mr. Hsu emerged as a contributor to Democrats and more than a year before he started bundling checks from those same people for various campaigns. In all, he has raised more than $1 million for Democrats.
The records make clear that the group was more than just a loose collection of friends, family and co-workers that bundlers typically rely on when raising money for a candidate. Rather, each person had a direct financial relationship with Mr. Hsu, either receiving money from his company or paying into it, even though many of them appear to have other jobs or businesses independent of him. The purpose of the payments, and whether they related to business costs, fees or expenses, is unclear...
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The stink of corruption in finance is so much greater in the Republican Party, don't you think? A million bucks was pocket change for the two Bush campaigns with the Pioneers and Rangers. And they got paid off the old-fashioned way. Direct access to the Vice-President and his secret Energy Task Force, a war for oil that failed miserably in taking over the Iraqi production, but succeeded in error (just like Ahmed Chalabi) by driving oil prices--and profits!--out of this world. ExxonMobil is making ten billion dollars profit every three months.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0714-05.htm
Bush 'Bundlers' Take Fundraising to New Level
http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/0726-06.htm
Revamped WhiteHouseForSale Web Site Tracks 2008 Presidential Candidates' "Bundlers"
http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/
This is the market-based signal of who's most likely to be our next President: Clinton, Obama, Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Edwards, in that order. Or will we prefer another avuncular acting presence, riding in on a dark horse?
How many of those thousands of bundlers are just honest businessman and women, "earning" their 8 and 9-figure incomes with time left over for fundraising on the side, and how many are corrupt? Let's hope Hsu is the worst of the lot.
Newwest is so desperate to deflect attention form another fundraiser for Hillary getting busted that they have still another article about this today. I guess they haven't heard about Hso or Riveria yet, or think it is fine. Hillary is going to break records giving to Charity at this rate.
From here on out I'm going to get the full body shivers whenever I hear the song, "Boot Scootin' Boogie."
Second, the corruption issue is wrecking our political process and the faith of the people in our leaders that have benefited from it.
The D's swept into office with promises of reform and all we have is more of the same. As I recall last summer when Jon Tester won the D primary in Montana he left for California for some "fund raising." Low and behold he is a recipient of Hsu and associates cash. What does this mean when a Montana politician goes to Cali to fish for cash from disreputable sources? Not everyone gets to play Polly Pure Heart like Hillary does over and over again. When I read thru the WSJ and NYT articles that I linked above I have to wonder what the heck is the connection of dubious sources to the large list of recipients that I linked above?
Remeber Cosco and Bill Clinton? Is this all a coincidence or are there funnels and washing machines working overtime to facilitate the transfer of cash to gain favor with receptive parties? I don't know, but I am very uneasy about this. My fear is that China is looking to invest the gagillion of dollars that it holds to buy favor for a potential invasion of Taiwan and the complete domination of the western Pacific. Meanwhile we grow weaker while more and more of our manufacturing ability moves off shore.
There are so many real important issues beyond toe tapping and no one in other party is willing to lead to address them.
If you mean "either", you really should acknowledge the points about R corruption more seriously, just as those of us who usually vote D should acknowledge what you are saying about D corruption. Thanks for the links, btw. Otherwise, it's just the blogosphere level of business as usual.
If you are serious about seriousness, to the structural corruption issue, you ought to add the constitutional crisis that President Bush, egged on by Cheney, has created with his outlandish imperial claims for presidential power. He has been enabled by the former partisan cowardice of congressional Republicans when they controlled Congress in rolling over for his power grab. Now he is enabled by the new, somewhat different cowardice (fear of accusation of partisanship) of congressional Democrats in failing to address his attack on the Constitution seriously. To which add the cowardice of the media in failing to define the issues clearly due to fear of "loss of access" to the White House.
Unfortunately it is likely that part of the absence of a more vigorous response is that actual or potential presidential contenders of both parties don't want to limit their own potential power & ability to abuse it. It is often forgotten that most of the draconian provisions of the so-called Patriot Act had been in the draft "Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996" bill that Bill Clinton and Janet Reno sent to Congress, that was somewhat toned down there, with Republicans in control.
Like Craig, I am very worried about the cozy relationship of some powerful politicians with China, and their influence in this country. I am also concerned about a population that will vote for the one providing them the msot goodies. Take a look at the present race going on, the promises getting the most play are those that promise to take away all unpleasantness and responsibility, no worry about health care, war, etc. Dangerous ground.
This is the justification that has been trotted out for a profound debasement of the principles that make this country worth fighting for.
Why should I fear the terrorists? We live in the most powerful, most wealthy, most successful nation in the history of civilization. We have the means to protect ourselves, and we can do it lawfully.
We also have the means to visit Biblical destruction upon any or all nations on Earth, and have demonstrated we're not afraid to use them. Thanks to the actions of our current administration, we have squandered the good will that we had as the wounded party 6 years ago, and now are much more feared than those who attacked us.
That's the plan of the fearful -- be more frightening than anyone else.
Other countries will follow our example, whether it is to be a threatening bully, or to provide a righteous example of freedom, democracy and free enterprise.
I face a greater personal risk from my use of automobiles and highways than I do of suffering from a terrorist attack. I find calls to "be very afraid" pathetic.
Both parties pander to people who say "I want, I wish" and turn that into entitlement gratification. President Kennedy put it best when he said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Apply that to illegal immigration. Those that argue open borders are really saying that those immigrants are "entitled" to be here and don't have to work through the process that says that being in this country and part of it is special and requires respect for its established institutions and laws. We have become a consumptive society and have moved away from creation and production. Our growing international debt evidences this. Take healthcare. What candidate other than Huckabee is saying people should do far more to prevent the health issues that create the need for so much treatment? Obesity, smoking, and lousy nutrition are lifestyle choices to a great extent. However, the spin and discussion is all about how government should provide support services to enable us to continue those lifestyles without change. Where are the candiates to address those choices that lead to the ever growing % of single family households and the destruction it leads too? It's simple really. Life depends upon growing faster than the process of dying. Apply that to a country such as ours and work the problem bacwards from the future to the present. Unless we grow and create faster than the process of dying, the end draws ever closer. National policy and politics better start addressing this reality.
All true but completely false. "We" lack the will and the courage to make those choices to do it. After the first World Trade Center attack, what did we do that manifested that will? In my opinion, the second attack is the proof of hand wringing rather than action. When law enforcement attemps to profile behavior they are accused of racism. The recent Puget Sound ferry controversy is case in point.
I disagree. Absolute protection is not possible in any event, so better to live with integrity and set an example that others can emulate.
Living with integrity brings us back on topic, if I'm not mistaken. Let's talk about the cultural wisdom of celebrating committed, monogamous relationships, and establishing same-sex marriage instead of forcing people like Larry Craig to live in a shameful closet.
With an occasional exception for a particularly fine piece of writing that comes our way, we cover national issues - including the presidential race - as they relate to Idaho, then the West. That's our mission.
We are under no obligation to be an equal-opportunity scandal report. The fact is that Idaho senator Larry Craig did something illegal. He's a Republican. We would have covered it exactly the same way had he been a Democrat. There is no glee in our reporting; we're providing both news and commentary, just as every single news outlet in the country is doing.
I take issue with your statement that Larry Craig did something illegal. He plead guilty to something illegal, that is a fact. I have yet to see anyone give a coherent argument as to linking the facts, as we know them, to breaking a particular law. He may have had illegal intentions but what were the proscribed acts that he commited? We tend to punish acts, not intentions. Personally, I am disgusted by the man and his behavior both before and after the arrest. He is finished and quicker the better for everyone.
Weren't those Dawgs awesome yesterday?
I can understand why you want to stick to just the west, but how many articles have you done on Harry Reid and his real estate deals for an instance, or the money he took from Abramhof, how much of that $68,000 did he give back?
How about all of the people that flip the bird finger, I wonder if that is illegal behavior becasue of what it is suggesting.
>>>>>>>>
Jerome A. Burg, a lawyer for another defendant, said after reviewing Mr. Craig’s publicly available police reports: “I don’t think he had violated the law yet. I think the officer jumped the gun.” Mr. Craig’s conduct, as described in the police report, was far from the most lewd, a comparison of the 40 arrest reports showed; some men were accused of passing sexually explicit notes or exposing themselves.
His was one of only five of the cases in which a plainclothes officer was touched; Mr. Craig was accused of moving his right foot under the stall divider to touch the officer’s left foot. Mr. Craig has said he may have accidentally touched shoes because he sat with his legs spread wide.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
However, it just doesn't matter in the long-run. He can withdraw his plea, fight to have the charges dismissed, and still wake up knowing his political life is over.
Sen. Craig is not "suspected" of doing anything, nor is the crime "alleged," which are words being used by some who don't believe the police. He has been convicted of it. It is accurate to say he behaved illegally when he pled guilty and was convicted. He was presumed innocent when he was charged; once he's pled guilt he no longer enjoys that presumption.
It seems ripe to cover the whole oeuvre of Shakespeare before it's done.
The latest coverage (NYT cite by C.M.) exposes the fact that had Senator Craig sought counsel, he might have succeeded in making the case quietly go away, as he apparently desired. Something clouded his judgment, and the inference about what that was has been inescapable to all but the most naive.
Was a crime committed? It hardly seems so. The well-understood purpose of "the signals" is to ensure that only willing participants participate. If the Minneapolis police wanted to cure the menace of stall sex, they could have simply posted a uniformed officer in the restroom, and rounded up anyone guilty of creating excess commotion.
Instead, we have a morality play, public demonstrations of loyalty, integrity, truthfulness, grace under pressure, and the lacks thereof.
The Republicans sowed the wind by bedding down with the Religious Right, and some of them are having to reap the whirlwind as a result. Senator Craig is a tragic figure to be sure, but in a long line of tragic figures. (Consider Seth Randal's film, and the Op-Ed he and Alan Virta had in the NYT, for example.) Many of the millions currently doing time in prisons across the land are guilty of nothing more than the sort of victimless exchange of goods and services that fall outside the current morality, as Larry was attempting.
They may be getting "free room and board," but they won't be getting a $100,000 annual pension, or walking around free on their own recognizance.
The final act in the tragedy is Craig trying to "clear his good name" by getting high-priced lawyers too late to fix what has been irrevocably broken.
One man's poison is another man's meat, however. Butch Otter's anxiously awaited appointment will launch a new cycle of Idaho tales....
AND still there is NO mention of this by any New West bureau about the Hsu scandal. As you may recall Senator Tester campaigined on Abramoff and now we learn he trolled in the same waters. Look closely and see that he returned the associates contributions while Hillary and others only return the Hsu cash and keep the associates' contributions.
Give it up, Craig. This site doesn't report everything that goes down around the country. Why don't you start your own blog and then whine about Democrats there so we don't have to put up with your willful ignorance of Republican malfeasances.
"Missed it by that much."
Those names include from the West:
Maria Cantwell
Jon Tester
Harry Reid
Bill Richardson
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
many more from California
the Dem Senatorial Campaign Cmte which runs ads in all Western states
and...........
Last campaign cycle was about the "culture of corruption" and the "politics of corrution" while beating the Abramoff drum. Those that claimed there were going to clean up the process and the system have much to answer for. Was the taking of this tainted cash by the reformers mere incompetence or intentional?
Why are you so obsessed with something that hasn't even finished being investigated yet? Maybe because you're a hyper-partisan con man with nothing better to do with your life?
As the article you posted noted, all the Democrats are waiting anxiously to see which moneys they have to give back. I don't remember The Hammer doing that, nor did Mike Simpson give back the Abramoff money.
You're just a smear artist, looking for your next target to fling your poo at.
B-b-b-b-but Silly Sali and the Club for Growth!
http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/09/conservative_club_clipped_by_b.html
Waaaaaahhhh! Why don't we hear more about the Club for Growth and their timely separation from the Citizens Club for Growth!??? Jill, I demand that you pamper my whims and report on this highly boring topic where we don't even know if anything happened that was wrong!
NW has also posted the news article you've been so desperate to see: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/testers_money_matters/C8/L8/
Now, what about my statement that is not applicable to all of organized politics?
Again you raise Abramoff. I found it interesting to add together the Abramoff cash to the Hsu cash and see who benefited. Remember Abramoff gave to D's as well.
See: http://suitablyflip.blogs.com/suitably_flip/2007/09/hsu-vs-abramoff.html
Add the totals together and we get:
R's: 2577588
D's: 2699521
To argue who's more pregnant seems silly to me. It also strikes me as similar to two terminally ill people with cancer arguing over who is going to die first. However, those that campaigned on taking a broom to Washington and changing the culture of corruption have some 'splaining to do like Reid, Pelosi, Tester, and Feinstein to name just four from the West.
The Republicans invite their criminals to dine with the President and allow them to take them on illegal junkets then act shocked.
The Democrats return the money. There was no Quid Pro Quo, no tit for tat, no exclusive deals.
And still you see no difference. Well, I guess that is your problem and it highlights exactly why you're a partisan whiner.
Can you say COSCO?
Frankly after Sen. Tom Lantos little show today, I would be ashamed to admit being a Democrat. He flat called a 4 star General of the Unitied States army a liar prior to teh General uttering one word. A Four Star General in a combat zone to protect each and every one of us! Absolutely disgusting.
http://www.corruptionchronicles.com/2007/09/clinton_ignored_warning_about.html
>>>>>>
Clinton Ignored Warning About Hsu’s Dirty Cash
Despite being warned months ago that a shady Chinese fundraiser ran an illegal enterprise, Hillary Clinton gladly accepted his hefty donations and now federal authorities have launched an investigation into his businesses...
Tainted money has never been a problem for Clinton who has already been fined for violating federal election rules during her senate campaign for concealing more than $700,000 in contributions.
The former First Lady also took thousands of dollars in illegal contributions from a wealthy Pakistani businessman who fled the country—and appears on the FBI’s Most Wanted list--after being charged with conspiracy and illegal campaign contributions. Clinton said she had no idea her lucrative donor, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, was violating the law.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And Craig, please go whine to Tom Delay. He'll make sure to tell you how hard it is to be a criminal Republican and get away with it.
As to your falacious claim the D's give the money back, here is an article that attempts to attack R's but includes an impressive list of D's reported to have kept the Abramoff cash just like many are doing with the Hsu and associates cash.
See: http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/silence/archives/2007/09/on_returning_mo_1.shtml
You pathetic worm. Go F yourself. I'm done ever making fun of your dumb ignorant ass.
>>>>>>>>>
Clinton to Return All Hsu-Tainted Money
By Patrick Healy
Updated report: Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign announced tonight that it would return approximately $850,000 to about 260 donors who had been recruited or tapped by Norman Hsu, the disgraced Clinton campaign fundraiser who recently fled arrest and is now under investigation for his fundraising practices.
<<<<
He's a pathetic craven spineless political beast now, Marion, and so are you.
From the Guardian, see: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/tim_montgomerie/2007/09/the_surge_is_working.html
>>>>>>>>>>
General Petraeus' words were not given to him by the White House. They were not drafted by the Pentagon. This experienced soldier, long admired by the Clintons, authored his own report and told the American people: "the military objectives of the surge are, in large measure, being met."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The GAO report and many other non-biased reports all say exactly the opposite of what Betray-us has been claiming in his report.
How does that add up when the only interviews he gives are to partisan hacks like Hugh Hewitt and Faux News? He's a partisan, simply that and only that. He's become a political tool and you're just sitting there with your blinders on because he has some medals attached to his chest.
Just remember what happened to Colin Powell's reputation and the damage done to America's reputation before you spout off using only your blind trust.
From yesterday, Sen. Wexler:
"General you say we’re making progress in Iraq but the Iraqi parliament simply left Baghdad and shut down operations last month. You say were making progress but the nonpartisan GAO office concluded that the Iraqi government has failed to meet a fifteen of the eighteen political economic and security benchmarks that Congress mandated. You say we’re making top progress? War related deaths have doubled. An ABC/BBC poll recently said that seventy percent of Iraqis say the surge has worsened their lives. Iraqis say the surge is not working."
Betray-us claimed that sectarian deaths have dropped, which is a lie because they played with the numbers. Do you think Betray-us played with the numbers or do you think that came right out of the White House playbook?
Betray-us claimed that car bombings are down, which has been shown to be false.
How many more lies before you wake up? Never mind, you're like Rip Van Winkle, incapable of waking, stuck in a dream world where WMD have been found, Saddam had a connection to Al-Qaeda and George W. Bush is a hero.
The facts are in, he's lying and you want to play silly word games.
Good job, Craig, you're a pathetic twit.
I don't know the truth of who contributed what, butI am not prepared to stand and salute just because someone has a chestfull of colored ribbons, especially when said someone has already demonstrated his willingness to say what the administration wants to hear, for partisan effect.
The "facts" collected by the General don't comport well with numerous other objective sources. The "conclusion" is plain enough. We're staying the course, through the end of the Bush Administration, and the debacle of the Iraq occupation is going to be handed off to his successor.
How long before you crumble in a corner, crying, whimpering and trying to pick up the pieces of a life of lies, Craig? You're supporting these criminals, these liars. You're one of the enablers and you don't have an ounce of realization of that. That is just so sad.
>>>>>>>>
Baird sticks to his guns despite drawdown talk
Brad Shannon
The Olympian
U.S. Rep. Brian Baird said Monday that the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker echoed what he heard from them last month during a tour of Iraq.
And it won't change the 3rd Congressional District Democrat's view that U.S. troops need to stay in Iraq for a longer time, although he thinks some personnel might be able to leave by year's end.
"There has been progress in the security front in a number of areas though not in all areas of Iraq. There continue to be substantial security challenges in many areas," Baird said in a telephone interview, adding that the Iraqi military is not yet up to the task of defending the country against insurgents.
"But that shouldn't be surprising. They've had basically three years to stand up an entire army. It can't be done," he added.
Baird voted against the original war authorization and has said it was one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy mistakes in history. But he said he is encouraged by what he believes is a chance now to "withdraw as much as a brigade by the end of the year."
<<<<<<<<<<<
Baird has been noted to say he knows that his position may cost him his office. Standing up for what he believes is right, knowing the potential consequences is called integrity.
Jay all your name calling and insults don't change this for either General Petraeus or Congressman Baird. Yesterday, I gave you a little return in-kind shot to the ribs for the entire truck load of insults you have shoveled here and elsewhere and you folded like a paper doll.
Now I got an offer for you. How about we raise the level of discourse here so we don't frighten away others to participate? Let's stick to the issues without the personal pejoratives aimed at each other and respect the purpose of New West to provide of forum for lively discussion of differing points of view. I will if you will. How about it?
Your lies drag down the discourse, your inability to understand anything that anyone puts down that you don't agree with drags down the discourse. Your blind obedience to party above reality drags down the discourse.
So screw you, Craig. Go hump your party some more, your arguments are washed up.
I'm personally a fan of organization and staying on-topic, but got carried away in this thread, after several attempts to keep it somewhere in the vague vicinity.
Discussion of the war in Iraq is certainly important, but this is a "silly" place to carry it on.
Adios, amigos.
He didn't, for once, get what he wanted. But he got what he needed.
It seems I need to remind you about our Terms of Service around here. The link is right below here at the end of the page and if you are one of the people hurling personal attacks in here, it would behoove you to read them through again. If we see more blatant name-calling and personal attacks here, we'll have to remove them or shut off this comment thread entirely.
We love spirited discussion, but when it devolves like this, we have to jump and remind folks what a civil spirited discussion means. So, if you can't remember, don't know or are unwilling to practice what that entails, please find another forum to express yourself or we will have to exercise our right to remove comments or close the forum.
Thanks in advance for respecting this.
Courtney Lowery
Editor in Chief
If you all have this much time to pontificate there are numrous charties, shut-ins and the disable that need voluteers to help them and truly make an impact.
See: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344
>>>>>>>>>
Question: On the Amendment (Cornyn Amdt. No. 2934 )
Vote Number: 344
Vote Date: September 20, 2007, 12:36 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote
Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008)
Statement of Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
Vote Counts: YEAs 72
NAYs 25
Not Voting 3
<<<<<<<<<<<
Hillary Clinton voted "Nay"