Citizen 4.0
356 Followers · 4.7K Items
Rose Iphone 5 Case
Saved 4/23/12 to Citizen 4.0

GOP Investigates Possible White House Link to Prostitution Scandal


Can the Secret Service prostitution controversy be connected to President Obama's White House? Sen. Chuck Grassley wants to know.

CNN reports that Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked the Secret Service in a letter on Friday if their investigation into a prostitution scandal in Columbia involves looking into possible connections to two White House offices, the White House Communications Agency and the White House Office of Advance. In the letter addressed to Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan and Acting Inspector General Charles Edwards, Grassley asked if White House staffers reserved or shared rooms with the Secret Service while in Colombia.

His call for a widened investigation was backed up by Sen. Joseph Lieberman on Sunday. The Senate Homeland Security chairman told Fox News that "it’s a reasonable question" to ask about possible White House involvement in the scandal.

But asked whether Obama should be held responsible for the prostitution scandal, Lieberman offered a nuanced response, saying that it "would be unfair to hold President Obama responsible for this outrageous behavior by the Secret Service" but that "it is fair to hold a president accountable."

The scandal involving service members and Secret Service agents hiring prostitutes in Colombia has resulted in six Secret Service agents losing their jobs. A total of 22 men from the Secret Service and the military are suspected of having participated in a night of partying in Colombia two nights before President Obama’s scheduled visit to Cartagena for an international summit. The agents were part of an advance team preparing for the president's arrival.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2012/04/23/chuck_grassley_questions_secre...

Saved to

Citizen 4.0

Rose Iphone 5 Case ACORN Smear Costs O'Keefe What Could Possibly Go Wrong? I Do Thank the Right for Its Tepid Support of This Guy I Feel Safer Now There Will Be More Trayvons Hill GOP Struggling to Face Reality It Created
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
Yes.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 21 weeks
Pax, it's been almost 20 comments later and you've yet to respond to my answers on this. You've chosen instead to engage in mud slinging and name calling. Would you actually answer real questions or should I literally just ignore every single post & comment of yours as an utter waste of time.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 21 weeks
Pax your explanations are simply disjointed. Some of what you say is comprehendable but then you go off on these peripheral tangents some which are far removed from the topic at hand. So far removed that it can't be taken seriously as a contribution to the topic. It would do you well to refine your explanations.
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
Ah Hypno, it's good to have your 'can do' spirit back!
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
Of course -- "Ignorance is bliss." Enjoy that till it impacts you, as it has those who are not among the privileged elites.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 21 weeks
My thinking is as long as we don't understand Pax we're in pretty good shape.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
Pardon, your highness. I realize that as one of the noble elite you understand only what you want. Sorry to have challenged that. Really, Steph, does "O" magazine dictate your thoughts. Do you wonder if you ever think freely? I am worried about you. How can I help free you from being in the belly of the left's propaganda machine?
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
I challenge anyone here to translate Pax’s comments into a coherent argument.
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
“You are right! Obama is not responsible for anything. It is his handlers, and our federal government has been under the sway of the same "handlers" (to slightly varying extents) since before FDR. Power and money attracts greed and abuse. Point one for why we need less, not more, government.” So, first you specifically accused President Obama in four comments of creating a ‘tenor’ that allowed the Secret Service scandal to happen. Then, you suddenly decided that it wasn’t the President, it’s handlers who, according to you, have been around since before FDR. That means they were around during Republican administrations as well – but, according to you, they only reflect Democratic corruption. A chimp throwing feces makes more sense than you.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
The handlers, the power behind the throne, want exactly what you (the left) want -- a moraless, powerless (no guns or economic power), ignorant mass of workers that is brainwashed and easy to control by them, the elite, no you, their tools. That's almost the full explanation of the Democratic Party Platform! You act here as if you are the elite because you parrot precisely what that power wants, and they want you to think that. You are living the life that that power wants. One where government is the source of all that's good and right and the family, church, and community are meaningless, powerless, empty distractions.
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
I understand the handlers, but I don't see how Pax confused them with President Obama when he was slandering the President and blaming him for Secret Service mis-behavior.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 21 weeks
do we need to take a look at the new face of "handlers"? Or are we all up to speed on how Citizens United, Glass Steagal, and other decisions have given us a corporatocracy where it's $1=1Vote rather than 1Person=1Vote. It's no longer shadowy figures, more and more they are coming out of the shadows (such as with Foster Friess & Sheldon Adelson) and directly funding the specific candidates that they want to the tune of millions and millions of dollars, not to mention indirectly financing their SuperPAC's to run nasty hate ads and disinformation/propaganda.
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
Hold it Pax, try and focus. In four comments in this thread, you specifically name and attack President Obama as setting a "moraless", "socialist" tone for government that led to the Secret Service behavior. Then suddenly you say oh no, it's not him, it's these secretive handlers who are around regardless of the party in power. So why the switch? Why did you specifically and repeatedly attack the President - then suddenly switch to 'handlers'? If it wasn't a mistake what was it? The Carter story is incoherent.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 21 weeks
Scratch my last comment.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
It's not a mistake. When anyone says a public figure did this or that, there has to be someone else actually performing the feat. However, like it or not, the government answers to some more than others -- the elected official's handlers, whoever the elected official is. A book concerning Jimmy Carter's election by a volunteer, related that, immediately at the end of election night, they and Carter aimed to choose his cabinet next. Shortly thereafter, when the volunteers arrived at Carter's home in Plains, they told him that they had the candidates -- he collapsed to the floor in tears, telling them that they had all already been chosen.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 21 weeks
Well at least Pax doesn't sound coocoo any more. That's a plus.
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
How can you make a mistake like that Pax? First you lay it all at President Obama's feet, then suddenly it's 'handlers' - who even held the government under their sway when Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and both Bushs were president?
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
You are right! Obama is not responsible for anything. It is his handlers, and our federal government has been under the sway of the same "handlers" (to slightly varying extents) since before FDR. Power and money attracts greed and abuse. Point one for why we need less, not more, government. Thanks for the citations. I appreciate the quality of your work.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 21 weeks
here's something ironic for Pax, at least it will seem ironic and counter-intuitive to him. http://www.secretservice.gov/director.shtml the director of the Secret Service was given his first position within the SS under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, assigned to the presidential protection division under Bush 1, promoted under Clinton, reassigned a couple of times under Bush 2. This guy has been serving in the SS for nearly 35 years, under many presidential teams, any "socialist" ties that Obama has is a drop in the bucket compared to the presidential leadership the director has operated under in the past. You are seriously grasping at straws to try and link Obama to the acts of a handful (even if it's a large handful) of secret service agents.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 2 years 21 weeks
Basically Pax your grand generalization does not fit the crime. That's all there is to it. Also granted the President in a sence is every ones "boss" but to be more specific with regard to the Secret Service he is their task not their boss if you really want to needle on the finer point.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 21 weeks
here is an international commission on Sex Work in Europe's proposition for delineating the legalities and rights/responsibilities in relation to sex work: http://www.sexworkeurope.org/images/phocadownload/dec_brussels2005.pdf good read, but it is a long one, so grab a cup of coffee or something to sip on while you read. http://www.avert.org/sex-workers.htm this page has some great stats and examples of real-world policies that have shown positive movement in preventing violence and exploitation of sex workers (male and female). more on HIV/STD prevention in sex work: http://www.who.int/gender/documents/sexworkers.pdf curious where it's legal and illegal and the specifics of those laws? it's all listed here: http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772#netherlands
BiWife BiWife 2 years 21 weeks
prostitution does often involve exploitation of women. However, in countries where it is legalized and effectively regulated, it makes the job safer for the women involved and gives them both safe spaces to seek help as needed (since they don't have to worry about the same stigma and legal repercussions as women in countries with a prohibition on prostitution) as well as legal avenues of recourse against those who would exploit them.
pax4pax pax4pax 2 years 21 weeks
And you certainly wouldn't want to insult yourself. However, so, from your comment, prostitution is okay with you? You don't think it involves the exploitation of women? Are you a woman?
stephley stephley 2 years 21 weeks
To call that comment stupid would be an insult to stupidity.
BiWife BiWife 2 years 21 weeks
are you really so naive/ignorant of logical fallacies? "setting the tenor" does not mean "restricting every moment of every individual". What the SS guys did isn't even illegal - other than the one who tried to shortchange the prostitute - as they were getting the prostitutes from a legal brothel (same as they have in Amsterdam and many other countries). It may be immoral in your personal worldview, but that doesn't mean that it is something that should be verboten in totality.