Of course, everybody’s following this one. While it’s a fairly normal occurance these days for a high-ranking Washington politician to engage in perverted and criminal activities, it’s not every day one of them just quietly admits his participation in the infraction to the judge and accepts the punishment with no fanfare preceding the admission of guilt. If it weren’t for the disgusting criminal acts this man seems to get his “jollies” from, I’d almost have a degree of respect for his accepting responsibility for his perverted crime, that is; before he started lying to the People, trying to wiggle his way out of what is now a matter of Public record forever: “GUILTY AS CHARGED”…
And, I mean… come ON. The man IS guilty; there’s no way around it. For his foot to “bump” the law enforcement officer’s foot, the disgraced Larry Craig HAD to be sitting on the toilet seat with his pants up, correct? I mean, if the man had his pants down around his ankles, “takin’ care of bidness” as he NOW claims, how far is the man’s foot going to “slip”? Here’s a homework assignment for those doubters and pervert sympathizers: go sit on the can with your pants down around your ankles and see how far apart you can spread your feet.
I repeat:
GUILTY AS CHARGED!
Dear Senator “Uncle Pervie”: don’t let the door hitchya where the Good Lord splitchya…
From CNN:
Well-placed GOP sources: Craig likely to quit soon
WASHINGTON (CNN) — Several well-placed GOP sources in Washington and Idaho have told CNN that embattled Republican Sen. Larry Craig is likely to resign soon, possibly as early as Friday.
GOP sources with knowledge of the situation told CNN’s Dana Bash that the Republican National Committee was poised to take the extraordinary step of calling on Craig to resign but held off.
The RNC put the move on hold, the sources said, because top party leaders have received indications that Craig himself is preparing to step down.
Sources have confirmed that high-level meetings on the matter were being conducted in Idaho on Thursday.
Craig has been under pressure to quit since news surfaced this week that he was arrested in June at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport and later pleaded guilty to a disorderly conduct charge.
The arrest was made by an officer investigating reports of sexual behavior in an airport restroom. …”
Another one bites the dust…
***
UPDATE: 8:22 PM CST -
GOP Officials: Craig to Resign Saturday
By JOHN MILLER and MATTHEW DALY
BOISE, Idaho — Idaho Republican Sen. Larry Craig will resign from the Senate amid a furor over his arrest and guilty plea in a police sex sting in an airport men’s room, Republican officials said Friday.
Craig will announce at a news conference in Boise Saturday morning that he will resign effective Sept. 30, GOP officials in Idaho and Washington told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity. …” – The Washington Post
So, the new rumor is we will only have to put up with a convicted pervert in the Senate for one more month. So be it…
Let’s take a stroll around the blogosphere on this one — courtesy in part of MemeOrandum: PoliBlog (Center); Shakesville (Adult content warning – Left); Hot Air (Right); The Moderate Voice (Center); Drudge Retort (Left); Michelle Malkin (Right); Papamoka’s Straight Talk (Left – our good friend Matthew O’Keefe)
Loading ...
2:43 pm on August 31st, 2007 1
GTL
So…let’s see, it sounds like you’re saying because Craig is a homosexual he’s a pervert? I know that cain’t be what you’re saying because that would not be very “Democratic” of you. So with that in mind, what exactly is perverted about this? Tawdry to besure, but perverted?
2:54 pm on August 31st, 2007 2
Bzzzzzzzzt!
There is a difference between homosexual relationships and engaging in lewd acts in public restrooms. I would call a heterosexual couple doing the same “perverts”, just so yannow
My opinion has nothing at all to do with homosexuality and everything to do with acts of indecency where children could be present…
Glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify that’n, bro…
5:16 pm on August 31st, 2007 3
Sorry, but I don’t let my pants hit the floor in any restroom, especially a public one. I keep the belt/waistline on my legs above my knees.
Any change of opinion after listening to the tape of the interrogation? It sounds like Craig consistently maintained his innocence and only submitted to a lesser plea when the cop subtly hinted at exposing the issue to the news.
5:57 pm on August 31st, 2007 4
Thank ya very much for the link Gunny! Appreciate it very much my friend…
7:39 pm on August 31st, 2007 5
A foot tap is so unromantic, not to mention the choice of surroundings. There ought to be other legal ways to get a quick fix. That way we can keep more of our politicians.
9:46 pm on August 31st, 2007 6
pervert or tawdry, who cares.
this is the real story of the day
SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) — The Social Security Administration cannot start sending out letters to employers next week that carry with them more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, a federal judge ruled Friday.
Ruling on a lawsuit by the nation’s largest federation of labor unions against the U.S. government, U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney granted a temporary restraining order prohibiting the so-called “no-match” letters from going out as planned starting Tuesday.
The AFL-CIO lawsuit, filed this week, claims that new Department of Homeland Security rules outlined in accompanying letters threaten to violate workers’ rights and unfairly burden employers. Chesney said the court needs “breathing room” before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants.
She set the next hearing on the matter for October 1.
Don’t Miss
Police ordered to report illegal immigrant arrests
The Social Security Administration has sent out “no-match” letters for more than two decades warning employers of discrepancies in the information the government has on their workers. Employers often brushed aside the letters, and the small fines that sometimes were incurred, as a cost of doing business.
But this year, those letters are to be accompanied by notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution if they’re deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants. E-mail to a friend
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten
10:07 pm on August 31st, 2007 7
also:
WSWS : News & Analysis : Asia : Pakistan
US military bombards targets inside Pakistan
By Peter Symonds
29 August 2007
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
In an aggressive new step, the US military shelled and destroyed targets across the Afghan border inside Pakistan on Sunday. While it has received scant coverage in the American and international media, the attack foreshadows more extensive US cross-border operations that have the potential to further destabilise Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s uncertain grip on power.
The US-led coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement declaring that Pakistan had given permission for an attack on Taliban positions inside its borders. Occupation forces in the eastern province of Paktika used artillery and mortar fire to destroy six positions—three inside Afghanistan, and three across the border in Pakistan. According to the statement, at least 12 insurgents were killed in the barrage.
Pakistani officials emphatically denied giving approval for the assault. Military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad declared, “There was no attack [from Pakistan], no firing from our side of the border. And there was no permission asked by them or given by us.” Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Tasnim Aslam dismissed further US claims that Washington had an understanding with Islamabad to allow cross-border attacks as “speculative and fabricated”.
Late Monday, the US military belatedly conceded that no permission had been given. “We regret the miscommunications in this event,” Brigadier General Joseph Votel, deputy commander of NATO’s eastern region, declared. However, he made no apology for the attack itself and gave no guarantee that US forces would not engage in further cross-border attacks.
The incident follows a series of statements by Bush administration officials indicating that the US military would take unilateral action inside Pakistan against Taliban and Al Qaeda targets. Late last month, Bush’s Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend was asked on Fox News why the US was not sending predator drones and special forces into Pakistan. “Well, just because we don’t speak about things publicly doesn’t mean we’re not doing many of the things you’re talking about,” she replied.
During a press conference earlier this month, President Bush dodged a question about seeking Pakistani approval before sending in US troops. While noting the Pakistani president’s past cooperation and shared concerns about “terrorism”, Bush stressed: “I’m confident, with real actionable intelligence, we will get the job done.” US and Afghan officials had been demanding for months that Musharraf take tougher action against anti-US insurgents based in Pakistan’s tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan.
There is no doubt that the US military has already taken action inside Pakistan. An Associated Press report published last week revealed that, as early as 2004, the rules of engagement for elite US special forces had authorised “hot pursuit” of anti-occupation fighters into Pakistan without seeking prior approval from Islamabad. The documents laid out circumstances in which US troops could penetrate up to 10 kilometres into Pakistani territory. Pakistani villagers have protested on a number of occasions against US incursions and attacks, including aerial bombings.
To date, the Bush administration has played down cross-border operations to minimise the political fall-out for Musharraf, who confronts widespread domestic opposition over his support for the US occupation of Afghanistan and the bogus “war on terror”. For its part, the Pakistani regime has trod a fine line: publicly insisting that the US military observe its borders, while collaborating closely behind the scenes. The Associated Press article reported that the US military had established a liaison office in Islamabad that was responsible for notifying local authorities of US incursions into Pakistan.
US demands for tougher Pakistani action against Islamist militants have made Musharraf’s position even more precarious. Last month’s bloody end to the siege of Islamabad’s Red Mosque, or Lal Masjid, in which more than 100 people were killed, provoked widespread revulsion, denunciations of Musharraf as an American stooge and calls for his ousting. Attacks on Pakistani security forces by Islamic extremists have sharply escalated, with clashes taking place on a daily basis in tribal border areas. Major General Arshad told the media last Friday that around 250 militants and 60 troops had died over the previous month, including in suicide attacks on soldiers and police.
Musharraf is also facing concerted pressure from the major opposition parties. Exiled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who was ousted by Musharraf in a military coup in 1999, declared he would contest national elections after the country’s Supreme Court ruled last week that there was no barrier to his return. Another exiled former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, has engaged in talks with Musharraf to reach an arrangement that would enable her to return and take part in elections.
Musharraf is confronting growing demands to step aside as the country’s military commander if he seeks re-election as president. In the first sign of overt opposition in his own administration, one of Musharraf’s cabinet ministers resigned on Monday and called for him to step down as head of the army. The dilemma for the increasingly beleaguered military strongman is that the army will only remain as a secure base of support if he stays at its head. The fighting in border areas has already opened up rifts in the army, which has had close ties to Islamist groups, includes significant numbers of Pashtuns, and previously backed the Taliban in Pashtun areas of Afghanistan.
US cross-border attacks into Pakistan will only compound Musharraf’s political problems. While the clash on Sunday has been minimised, Washington has not ruled out further attacks. Faced with a deteriorating military situation in Afghanistan and the contorted logic of his “war on terror”, President Bush is under pressure to act against so-called Al Qaeda sanctuaries. Earlier his month, Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama publicly called for US troops to move against Al Qaeda forces inside Pakistan—with or without Islamabad’s approval.
Inside Afghanistan, US and coalition troops are confronting a rising tide of attacks by insurgents as well as widespread popular opposition to the five years of occupation, which has brought nothing but death and destruction to large parts of the country. Another five foreign troops died in fighting on Monday, taking the death toll for the year to more than 150. The 2007 figure is set to pass last year’s toll of more than 190—the highest since the 2001 invasion.
Last Sunday’s attack on alleged Taliban positions inside Pakistan may indicate the start of more aggressive US interventions, regardless of the impact on the country’s stability. One of the first casualties of such American action could well be Musharraf, who has been an important ally in legitimising and prosecuting the Bush administration’s “war on terror”.
See Also:
Obama calls for US attack on Pakistan in warmongering address
[3 August 2007]
Bush administration threatens military intervention in Pakistan
[21 July 2007]
Mosque massacre: Washington’s “war on terror” shakes Pakistan
MY POINT IS: PAKISTAN VERY POSSIBLY, BECAUSE ONE CAN NEVER BE SURE OF THESE THINGS, HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONRY.
AND ATTACKING THEM IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, IN MY OPINION.
BECAUSE ONCE THE NUKES START FLYING, WHICH WILL ONLY BE THE THIRD NUCLEAR MORDINANCE ATTACK IN HISTORY, ALL HELL IS GUNNA BREAK LOSE.
THE POINT TO THE IMMIGRATION STORY ABOVE IS:
EMPLOYERS PROFITEERING FROM VERITABLE SLAVE LABOR SHOULD BE PUNISHED HARSHLY- NOT IN A DRACONIAN FASHION- BUT IT SHOULD STING REAL BAD.
AND I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT NICE LITTLE FAMILIES WHO THINK, AND ARE, HELPING PEOPLE BY HIRING THEM AS MAIDS AND SO ON; I’M TALKING, IN PARTICULAIR, ABOUT SOUTH-WESTERN FACTORIES AND BIG BUSINESSES WHO ARE, WELL, TURNING THE SOUTH BACK INTO THE SOUTH, AHHHHH, I COULD GO ON….
10:48 pm on August 31st, 2007 8
[...] have purposefully avoided talking about what everyone else has been talking about…cuz…what else can be said? Anyway…I [...]