Pampers Vitter

Cancel7

Banned
I'm glad that Digby wrote this, because it's been annoying me since I read that Vitter had been put in charge of squeezing the Clintons on Bill's Global initiative. What world do Republicans live in when they can have hissy fits over normal gay people who, in loving relationships, want to get married, but a guy who pays hookers to diaper him! is gathered around as some sort of fucking guru? How does Hillary even look at this guy as he scowls down and tries to intimidate her, without picturing him in a huggie and cracking up? I wouldn't be able to stop laughing. I swear to God, I would bring a bottle of baby oil and rub it into my hands right in front of him and if anybody asked, I'd look real innocent and say "dry skin". But then I'd smile at him.

Anyway, Dibgy hits the nail on the head - what a joke. Hounding the clintons about a freaking anti-aids global organization that helps people, but not a word about the what the bush shitbags did to this country. I mean, this stuff would never have sold if you wrote it. They would have said "sorry, not believable".

No Good Deed

by digby

As I watch the gasbags "analyze" the Clinton confirmation hearings, it seems clear to me that the village will not rest until they force Bill Clinton to close down the Clinton Global Initiative and remove himself from his own foundation. By allowing foreigners to support these projects, Clinton is obviously committing treason.

Whenever I see some little diaper wearing toady like David Vitter get all filled with righteous indignation about conflict of interest and setting precedents I just have to laugh. George W. Bush's entire family was a walking conflict of interest for eight years --- his father even accepting money directly from the Saudi Arabian government for his own personal use. It was assumed that Poppy was clean because well .... he was one of them, if you know what I mean.

The village doesn't like Clinton doing this work because it makes their obsessive loathing look petty and shallow, which it is. They insist that there must be something nefarious about it, because they are still convinced that Bill Clinton came to town and trashed the place and they cannot rest until everyone in the world agrees with them. Which it never will.

This is how ridiculous this is: Bill and Hillary Clinton are pretty much accused by these jackasses of selling out their country --- to help people around the world deal with AIDS and climate change, no less. It makes no sense at all unless you are a spoiled elite who actually believes that helping AIDS victims and working on climate change is somehow in conflict with America's policies, which I'm sure they do.

Never let it be said that the establishment doesn't require accountability of politicians. They certainly do --- it's just that the only people they ever require it of are named Clinton. Imagine if they spent even a tiny portion of the energy they expend endlessly harassing those two for non-existent crimes on prosecuting war criminals or denouncing torture instead ...


*Here's just the first page of nearly a thousand projects which must be destroyed in order that the elites be allowed to continue to indulge their never ending quest to portray Bill and Hillary Clinton as crooks.
http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=2612&srcid=2384
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/
 
Is your ultimate point Hillary shouldn't be questioned about potential conflicts with Bill's global fund or she shouldn't be questioned by this individual you don't like?
 
Is your ultimate point Hillary shouldn't be questioned about potential conflicts with Bill's global fund or she shouldn't be questioned by this individual you don't like?

It's my ultimate commentary that repukes who dared not breathe a word of dissent, but clicked their heels and said "YES SIR, SIR' for eight fucking years as we were lied into a war, driven to economic collapse, and shit on the constitutiion, but who are waving their balls around now and demanding "answers" about a foundation that helps AIDS victims, are pathetic hacks.

The ones who like to pay hookers to diaper them? They're priceless.

Clear enough?
 
It's my ultimate commentary that repukes who dared not breathe a word of dissent, but clicked their heels and said "YES SIR, SIR' for eight fucking years as we were lied into a war, driven to economic collapse, and shit on the constitutiion, but who are waving their balls around now and demanding "answers" about a foundation that helps AIDS victims, are pathetic hacks.

The ones who like to pay hookers to diaper them? They're priceless.

Clear enough?


LOL

Where is all that hope and change you sheep promised. Oh wait, I guess its not OK to asked the impeached ex-presidents wife any questions on her husbands illegal donations from foreign governments.

Questions I would like to see asked.

Will she sell out the USA like she did during her time in the Whitehouse to China?

If your husband is accused of rape again for the the fourth time, will you still stand by his side?
 
"Where is all that hope and change you sheep promised"

There must be some kind of ongoing talking point out there for the right: anytime anything negative happens with Obama, ask sarcastically where all of that "hope & change" you promised is.

It's already fairly annoying.
 
Vitter is also apparently the point man for the Republicans on opposing the release of the rest of the TARP funds.

I honestly don't think they could have chosen a better face for the Republican party - a grown man who pays hookers to diaper him. It's almost perfect, the only thing it's missing, is a gay hooker.
 
I've always been of the mindset that whatever consenting adults want to do is fine & none of my business.

Still, the diaper thing has always weirded me out.
 
Yeah, why would anyone dare to question potential conflicts of interest?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/clinton-foundation-donor_n_152046.html

"The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to $5 million. Mr. Singh visited Washington in September to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear fuel and technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said later assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it days later."

That damn conservative Huffingtonpost.
 
IT'S FABULOUS!!! Republicans playing the same retarded strategy.
Any neocons want to be on 2010 dems gaining even more seats.
Keep it up repukclicans, it's comical.
 
Yeah, why would anyone dare to question potential conflicts of interest?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/clinton-foundation-donor_n_152046.html

"The potential for appearances of conflict was illustrated by Amar Singh, a politician in India who gave $1 million to $5 million. Mr. Singh visited Washington in September to lobby for a deal allowing India to obtain civilian nuclear fuel and technology even though it never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. He met with Mrs. Clinton, who he said later assured him that Democrats would not block the deal. Congress approved it days later."

That damn conservative Huffingtonpost.



Uh, that bill passed the Senate with 86 votes in favor, 49 of which were Republicans.
 
Uh, that bill passed the Senate with 86 votes in favor, 49 of which were Republicans.

Yeah, because the bill passed in a bipartisan manner, no need to look at any potentail conflicts of interest. Just pure coincidence the contribution to Bill, the meeting with Hillary and the outcome desired all occured.
 
Yeah, because the bill passed in a bipartisan manner, no need to look at any potentail conflicts of interest. Just pure coincidence the contribution to Bill, the meeting with Hillary and the outcome desired all occured.

Darling when Republicans allowed Exxon Mobil to write the United States energy policy behind closed doors, you forever lost any right to even utter the words "potential conflict of interest."

Sorry. But some of us have not been stricken with amnesia.
 
Yeah, because the bill passed in a bipartisan manner, no need to look at any potentail conflicts of interest. Just pure coincidence the contribution to Bill, the meeting with Hillary and the outcome desired all occured.
It's the "they do it too" argument they seem to forget is also a confession.
 
Yeah, because the bill passed in a bipartisan manner, no need to look at any potentail conflicts of interest. Just pure coincidence the contribution to Bill, the meeting with Hillary and the outcome desired all occured.


So Bill and Hillary Clinton managed to get every single Republican and 37 Democrats to vote for this bill? Seriously?

I'm all in favor of addressing conflicts of interest, but lets get real.
 
It's the "they do it too" argument they seem to forget is also a confession.

It's not about they do it too. I don't think the Clintons have done anything wrong here.

What it's about is, if you think you are going to get away with blatant hypocrisy, you're wrong.

You'll eat eight years of mindless corruption, whether you like it or not, so dig in boys.
 
Back
Top