Democrats' Hypocrisy Over Foley Matter

NewsMax.com ^ | Oct. 7, 2006 | David Limbaugh

[Suzy Quzy]

I totally agree!! So far, the Katsaros's seem to be neck-deep into this thing!!

[Suzy Quzy]

It's NOT dead.

[Suzy Quzy]

Won't they HAVE to answer the FBI's questions?? Or will they SCREAM "SEPARATION OF POWERS"!!!!!

[Suzy Quzy]

He;s a DU troll or he hasn't got the sense he was born with.

[palmer]

I think the longer Speaker Hastert stays around, the worse this is going to get. Someone needs to fall on his sword soon, for the good of the party.

You are conflating the perversion of one congressman with the decision of the leadership to not start a witch hunt over the emails. The emails, just to remind you, said send me a picture and mentioned the other page being in great shape along with much other benign content. So you and a few other prudes in your infinite monday-morning quarterback wisdom have decided that Hastert should have bugged his phone, put a keystroke monitor on his computer, or what? The FBI looked at the emails in June or July and decided not to investigate further. If you can't or refuse to understand these basic facts, then you need to stick to emergency appendectomies.

[Safetgiver]

What wxactly did the Republican leadership drop? A non-crime, with a consensual adult?

[Sister_T]

“You didn’t see people resigning in disgrace for these kinds of scandals when the Democratic Party was in the majority,” Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC, said. “We kept things under control.”

The statement went on to list people who were able to avoid resigning in disgrace when Democrats held the majority: Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), Rep Gerry Studds (D-Mass), Rep. Jim Bates (D-Calif), Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass), and Pres. Bill Clinton (D-Ark).

Is this supposed to make me confident in the DemocRATs? Is Howeird Dean really this stupid? This only shows me how morally BANKRUPT the DemocRATic party really is that they would have such REPROBATES! This only confirms what many already knew about the DemocRAT party: they have no morals, they have no conscience, they have no SOUL!

[Soul Seeker]

The media can say a lot of what it wants, and they even have the power to make people believe a lie because they won't tell them the truth.

But thus far they haven't shown the ability to convince anyone to negatively change their support for Republicans over this matter. In the end, that is what matters. If they can't make people stay home or vote Dem, then what is the point?

Ex. The MSM might be able to influence people to people to believe Global warming.

Great, they influenced an opinion.

But behavior? People are still going to use aerosal cans, they are still going to drive cars, etc..and the MSM can't stop them.

It's not enough to influence opinion, you have to influence behavior, and the MSM has failed to do so here.

[George W. Bush]

Just to correct the record, Pelosi and Co. aren't refusing to take lie detectors tests because they haven't been asked to. They've been asked to answer questions under oath and have refused, claiming that is just a GOP diversion.

If I were them, I would also refuse. Lie detectors are a myth. This is why no court of law will accept them after so many decades.

In fall 1997, a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held hearings regarding the FBI Crime Lab. Richardson gave scorching testimony about polygraphs. Referring specifically to the practice of using lie detectors to question people in sensitive positions, he said under oath:

It is completely without any theoretical foundation and has absolutely no validity. Although there is disagreement amongst scientists about the use of polygraph testing in criminal matters, there is almost universal agreement that polygraph screening is completely invalid and should be stopped. As one of my colleagues frequently says, the diagnostic value of this type of testing is no more than that of astrology or tea-leaf reading. If this test had any validity (which it does not), both my own experience, and published scientific research has proven, that anyone can be taught to beat this type of polygraph exam in a few minutes. Because of the nature of this type of examination, it would normally be expected to produce large numbers of false positive results (falsely accusing an examinee of lying about some issue). As a result of the great consequences of doing this with large numbers of law enforcement and intelligence community officers, the test has now been manipulated to reduce false positive results, but consequently has no power to detect deception in espionage and other national security matters. Thus, I believe that there is virtually no probability of catching a spy with the use of polygraph screening techniques. I think a careful exam-ination of the Aldrich Ames case will reveal that any shortcomings in the use of the polygraph were not simply errors on the part of the polygraph examiners involved, and would not have been eliminated if FBI instead of CIA polygraphers had conducted these examinations. Instead I believe this is largely a reflection of the complete lack of validity of this methodology. To the extent that we place any confidence in the results of polygraph screening, and as a consequence shortchange traditional security vetting techniques, I think our national security is severely jeopardized.

After he ripped polygraphs a new one, the FBI silenced Richardson, refusing to let him speak publicly about the subject again.

Opening Statement on Polygraph Screening, by Supervisory Special Agent Dr. Drew C. Richardson, FBI Laboratory Division, before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Senate Hearing 105-431: A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory: Beyond the Inspector General Report, 29 Sept 1997. Available at antipolygraph.org.

[blake6900]

If I were them, I would also refuse. Lie detectors are a myth.

George, I wasn't recommending or endorsing lie detector testing. Liberals aren't human so they can easily fool the machines.

[syriacus]

Let's see what Nancy Pelosi thinks about sex scandals...we can check her own website...

Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi

Statement in Opposition to the Articles of Impeachment

December 18, 1998

"It's about sex. It's about a punishment searching for a crime that doesn't exist."

[excerpt from Pelosi's web page]

[GOPJ]

Foley was a democrat - but couldn't win in a conservative district - so he switched. Republican gays get as many passes from the MSM as black Republicans - NONE.

And their fellow gays - the liberals ones, seem to hate them. Why should we buy trouble? Is it time for gay conservatives to go back to the Democrats. .

[Palladin]

Plenty of hypocrites to go around on both sides of the aisle!