Actually, I think he probably did mistakenly give the memo to Harkin, considering how parasitic and opportunistic it makes republicans look. Though, I find it hard to believe that he didn't know anything about it -- especially when it was in his possession. That seems a bit far-fetched.

OH MY GOD!!!! A POLITICAL STRATEGY MEMO!!!!!!! It's not like memos on political strategy are anything new (see the never-gonna-to-be-famous-because-it's-about-a-Democrat Sen. Kennedy memo, written by 2 former aides, to "unethically" block Judge Bibbons in Michigan to alter the Michigan AA decision....but I suppose THAT would be considered "ethical").

Questions (since I've not paid much attention to this yet):

You claim that Sen. Martinez admitted to passing this memo to Sen Harkin (the main basis for you calling him a liar). Is there proof of this? ...or is this one politician's word against another's?

Can you show that he knew about the memo at ALL (highly probable that he DID know about it, but probabilities are not the truth)? It's possible that his aides handed him a heap of papers for his day in the chambers and that was one of them.

It seems that, following the only quote given, he's admitted to passing it to Harkin, but didn't know that THAT is what he was passing along.....kinda ignorant if you ask me, to pass on something to the "other" party without knowing EXACTLY what you're passing on.

Anything thus far may be "hard to believe" either way...but don't take the case to court with the evidence provided.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but, I've got my mule-whip handy and I think I see carcass.

The end may not justify the means, but at least there is an end. That is to say, if one has an 'agenda' that one beleives is 'right', at least whatever poor actions one performs to further it were attempts to further a good cause.

I'm not saying Martinez had a good cause.

I'm merely pointing out that before we fuss over the asses on either side of the aisle that "compromise ethics and decency to further their agenda", we might take note of the politicians that compromise ethics and decency for 5 seconds of physical orgasm with a dim-witted intern.

It's hard to come up with an agenda to push that doesn't justify more things then that.

Sarge, your points are well taken. To confirm, however...Martinez did indicate he passed the memo to Harkin. As far as proof goes, you're correct that there is no proof he knew about it, but I would suggest that it is extremely likely.

""I'm merely pointing out that before we fuss over the asses on either side of the aisle that "compromise ethics and decency to further their agenda", we might take note of the politicians that compromise ethics and decency for 5 seconds of physical orgasm with a dim-witted intern.""

Hers or His, and it would be agenda that I'm speaking? Was it political?

To answer your question Andrew.....NO, I never believed that this was ever the "work of the Democrats"...is it possible? Of course, but I don't believe it.

Taking a second look...I don't believe that having a political strategy even to further ones own agenda can be put in the group called "unethical." Did this memo violate any rules of congress, any laws, or the Constitution? That hasn't been shown to be the case, has it? Was it a transgression to have a political strategy memo? Transgression against what?

What I wonder is why the press is jumping all over THIS case, yet didn't jump all over the Kennedy memo a year ago. They're partisan hypocrisy is noted. Sure, it was mentioned...but it wasn't hammered like they're doing with this one.

...and to correct myself, it wasn't an "aide" for Kennedy. It was a LAWYER for Kennedy that was on teh Senate Judiciary Committee. Funny thing is the usual political answer when asked about it. He was "outraged" that Republicans would burglarize this confidential material in the Judiciary Committee. Not outraged that his legal advisor would advocate for holding up the confirmation of a judge so as to affect an ON-GOING federal case, but outraged BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT.

I see this as the typical Washington politics that it is.....and it's BIPARTISAN politics.

I passed it but I didn't know what it was? Sounds like a bad meal at a greasy spoon.

What I see is that he knew he passed SOMETHING to Harkin (which turned out to be the memo), but didn't know it was "the memo." If so, what the frig does he "think" he WAS passing to this member of the "other" party? This sentence spells out my point:

"Unbeknownst to me, instead of my one page on the bill, I had given [Sen. Harkin] a copy of the now infamous memo that at some point along the way came into my possession."

Going by his words, he "thought" he was passing his one-page on the bill.....but was actually passing the memo......THAT AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY CAME INTO [HIS] POSSESSION. That last part sounds like he didn't even know he had the memo, to me. Of course, he could be lying through his teeth, but I can only go by what he says and not pure specualation.

He should've just used the Kennedy defense and denied to talk about it, denied all knowledge of it, denied any involvement in it, point the finger at the Republicans, and then wait for the media to lose interest...which they did within a week. It worked like a charm for HIM, as usual.

Anyone think it would work for ANY Republican in the same situation? Let's count the days.

A, Are you sportin' for a position at FOX Opinion Network?

Sarge, I think you missed my point. My major gripe is not with the memo per se (although I do think it was unethical), but the underhanded manner in which Politicians choose to conduct such affairs.

There was no name on it. That alone smacks of something rotten and is not standard practice for commnications between Senators. But then for the man from whose office it came (and the point man for the Schiavo bill) to claim that he never even read it and that such things would NEVER come from his office--although possible, that is simply not believeable under the circumstances.

I am willing to bet that SOP for strategic memos is that they are signed--even when they are not meant for the consumption of those outside the party.

What this all points to is that the authors and distributors of the memo all realized how slimy this particular memo was, so rather than be stand-up and taking ownership, they are feigning ignorance and doing whatever it takes to distance themselves from it.

One could also mention the timing of the revelation--end of week while the Pope makes the headlines. The whole thing just stinks. And no, it's not just the Republicans who do this. It just happens to be them this time around.

"Hers or His, and it would be agenda that I'm speaking? Was it political?"

Russ, in english please, what was that?

"Hers or His": well, in neither case do I refer to a deity. That aside, hers or his what? Hers or his orgasm? It was his. What the hell does that matter? Do you suggest it makes a difference?

"and what would be the agenda that I'm speaking" : I don't know Russ, I don't know what the hell your saying. Did you mean to say 'what would be the agenda YOU are speaking ABOUT?' ? There is no agenda, that was the point. Unless one considers sexual gratification an agenda. I suppose in his case, it might be one.

"Was it political?" : Was what political, the 'agenda' of getting layed? No. Decidedly not politcal at all. Again....that was the point.

You pretend, and then you answer. Good job MJ, we're all out of gold, so a silver star will have to do for today.

Yeah, so what? Did anyone actually believe this was the work of the Democrats?

Malkin and the Powerline Tards.

Pretend what, oh Incoherant One? I begin to wonder if you do not know who I am talking about. This wasn't a hypothetical example.

Before we fuss....as you cross the isle...to comment on something that isn't revelant to this post....Yeah, I get your trying to be witty comment. Who wouldn't?

Then you ask, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT? Join Steve and then you can post as....MS. BJ!!

It's not meant to be witty, russ. You either beleive that ethics and decency should come before politics, or not.

You might claim you think such, now, in regards to Senator Martinez. Curious the same people who criticize him have not expressed such views in the past, however.

As far as my asking 'what what what', well russ, it would help if you actually structured your words into whole sentances. I probably still wouldn't be able to understand what you were talking about, what with you being the raving gibbering moonbat you are, but it couldn't hurt.

Russ: What's Fox' opinion network?

A, The question came up about Martinez telling the truth. Truth or Lie? Well, present the topic, kick it around for a few days and let the PME posters decide. Then again, what we do here is just opinion anyway.

Fox and CNN stretches what they refer to as news, over a 24 hr. period. They present the topic, analyze it, examine, cross-examine and then run it for about eight day until it's nothing more than opinion. Therein Fox Opinion Network.. :-)

I appreciate your last paragragh and until Martinez and crew tell the truth, it's just opinion. Crew, as in all the politicians. The reason (stated) Harkin ended up with the memo was weak and the reason behind it was even weaker.

It's good to see you writing on Fridays, and I don't think you would survive on FON.

You either beleive that ethics and decency should come before politics, or not.

Well I do believe politcians are politicians however do you think it is unreasonable to expect a higher standard from people who try to pass themselves as the moral majority as almost all modern republicans do?

A, My response to your question is out there somewhere. TypeKey timed-out??

I'm not sure if Americans want the truth from politicians? By the time they (elected officials) get to the capitol they believe if they do something it's legal,moral and ethical. I know that many reach this goal while at the local or state level.

Um Yeah, according to you, yes. The president is suppose to be the moral leader of the people. You've repeatedly stated your views that not only do you not care about clinton commiting adultery WITH a subordinate employee IN the workplace, which happens to be the OVAL OFFICE (tantamount to Ozzy Osbourne pissing on the Alamo, it's a defication of a historical monument on top of everything else), not only have you expressed that you don't care, but you ridicule people who do care for caring.

So what the hell is it to you if Martinez thinks the comatose are politcally expedient?

The liberal/Rockefeller Republicans have once again given the MSM a mace to bludgeon all Republicans with. Last month’s star-crossed attempt by liberal Republicans to expand the role of government will hurt all Republicans. Mel is an imbecile. It is starting to look like ’06 will be a rerun of ’92 when Reagan Democrats left the Republican Party in a vain attempt to find a truly conservative party. Again liberal Republicans give the MSM the weapons to drive all Republicans out of office.

he president is suppose to be the moral leader of the people.

Since when? He is not your holiness or your honor, he is Mr. President.

ple. You've repeatedly stated your views that not only do you not care about clinton commiting adultery

I did care and was pissed but I have gotten over it, the only one who havent are the truly obsessed.

You are comparing the Clenis to using a woman as a political club?

You are one sick sad fuck MJ.

W could be found in the same bed as a dead prostitute and that same prostitute could be a 12 year old Filipino boy and all you idiots would is "But CLINTON ...."

Mae Magouirk safe for now. See Tekgnosis for further details.

Tell the Media to report the REAL Schiavo polls!

http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7351686&type=ME

http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/4/emw226586.htm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/prweb/20050408/bs_prweb/prweb226586_3

My account, etc. of Terri Schindler's Funeral Mass:

http://tekgnosis.typepad.com

W could be found in the same bed as a dead prostitute and that same prostitute could be a 12 year old Filipino boy and all you idiots would is "But CLINTON ...."

Uh.....no, I wouldn't. Tell me when the man has committed a real crime and I will blast him for it and call for his impeachment...you know, something like felony perjury and felony obstruction of justice. Hypotheticals don't wash....except in your world of Absurdistan.

the man has committed a real crime and I will blast him for it and call for his impeachment...you know, something like felony perjury.

Good luck getting him under oathe. He would be toast if that ever happened.

Sarge, this is not about committing a crime. It's about a republican handing out memos in the sentate that suggest this woman's misfortune is good politics for them and could help them defeat a democratic senator in the next election.

That's not illegal, but it's not right or good.

And MJ, the "ends" of this memo was to make democrats look bad and win a senate seat.

Tom, I agree.

I believe the political strategy became a moral/ethical issue when the pain and grief of this family (Schiavo/Schindler) was played like a pawn.

MJ,

I can't believe how much mileage you guys get out of clinton getting a blow job in the oval office. who fucking cares.

OK, he lied about it. But you know what? I don't care about that either. It was a personal matter (yes, even though it was in the white house). Was it stupid? Yes. Was it something that harmed anyone in this country aside from the parties involved? No, not until the witch hunt to nail clinton on something got a tape from Linda Tripp. More harm came from republicans investigating the affair (remember him being accussed of waging the dog when he actually went after al qauda prior to sept 11, something the man who followed him never did?).

You can think he's a scumbag for what he did, but let it drop.

Whoever wrote that memo was trying to use terri schiavo tradgey as a political advantage -- by trying to look morally superior to the democrats no less. Not only is that kind of reprehensable, but it's also hypocritical.

What Clinton did was a weakness in character (which everyone has). What certain republicans did was a proactive, cynical, predatory and parasitic act. Not everyone acts with such cold-hearted malice disguised as empathy and morality.

To clear up "what he did"...the physical actions aside, he committed a felony perjury (which he could've gotten out of doing by NOT answering the question under 5A rights...instead, he committed perjury to a federal grand jury) and felony obstruction of justice (which he DID and should not have done).

UY...call your congressman and tell him to file charges...you opinion on what would happen is irrelevant. Get your congressman to charge him or STFU.