(AP) Randall Tobias, head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said two people in a position to know the circumstances of his departure.

It was Tobias' own decision to resign, according to one of the people, who said the issue came up only in the past day or so. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way.

Tobias submitted his resignation a day after he was interviewed by ABC News for an upcoming program about an alleged prostitution service run by the so-called D.C. Madam.

ABC reported on its Web site late Friday that Tobias confirmed that he had called the Pamela Martin and Associates escort service to have women come to his condo and give him massages. More recently, Tobias told the network, he has been using a service with Central American women.

Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital.

SOURCE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/28/national/main2738173.shtml)

I wonder who else is on this list I hear it's quite extensive. :scratch:

I wonder who else is on this list I hear it's quite extensive. :scratch:As far as I'm concerned, that list ought to be publicized as widely as possible. I don't care what party affiliation or length of "service" is involved; these little buggers are supposedly our employees.

If they want to screw around its thier personal business. No one elses.


Now if he was selling government secrets then by all means lock him away but having sex with prostitutes is his business.

If they want to screw around its thier personal business. No one elses.

Now if he was selling government secrets then by all means lock him away but having sex with prostitutes is his business.You're wrong. Honest. It is a crime here; certainly as valid of one as lying under oath. Additionally, it is statistically a 'gateway' crime or at least accompanies other crime increases IIRC. That's obviously not a one-size fits claim, since I believe there are places in the U.S. where it is legal, but D.C. is already swimming in criminal sewage.

lying under oath

It was 9 ****ing years ago since clinton had his dick sucked. Get over it!

It was 9 ****ing years ago since clinton had his dick sucked. Get over it!Who said anything about B.J.? :grin:

Yeah, you could have been talking about Scooter Libby...


On second thoughts, probably not. :azn:

I'm a conservative, and I try to care that Clinton got a hummer, but I just can't seem to do it. Is something wrong with me?

Soooo don't care.

Soooo don't care.

And why is this suddenly a Clin-Ton thread? At issue is the solicitation involving numerous Gov't high-rollers.

Or at the very least, that the 65-year old claimed there was 'no sex' involved. Perhaps he's as limp as some of our foreign policy?

Why did you quote me?

(AP) Randall Tobias, head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said two people in a position to know the circumstances of his departure.

It was Tobias' own decision to resign, according to one of the people, who said the issue came up only in the past day or so. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way.

Tobias submitted his resignation a day after he was interviewed by ABC News for an upcoming program about an alleged prostitution service run by the so-called D.C. Madam.

ABC reported on its Web site late Friday that Tobias confirmed that he had called the Pamela Martin and Associates escort service to have women come to his condo and give him massages. More recently, Tobias told the network, he has been using a service with Central American women.

Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital.

SOURCE (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/28/national/main2738173.shtml)

I wonder who else is on this list I hear it's quite extensive. :scratch:
I honestly couldn't care less.

Oh noes! Someone had sex! We'd better find that person and lock them away quickly or it'll become an epidemic!

If they want to screw around its thier personal business. No one elses.


Now if he was selling government secrets then by all means lock him away but having sex with prostitutes is his business.

Word.. totally agree.

As far as I'm concerned, that list ought to be publicized as widely as possible. I don't care what party affiliation or length of "service" is involved; these little buggers are supposedly our employees.

Uh oh ... here comes the morality squad.

Better wipe that porno on your comp, Jman

---------------


I honestly couldn't care less.



Seconded ...

Uh oh ... here comes the morality squad.

Better wipe that porno on your comp, Jman<<If>> I was ignorant enough to host my extensive collection of girl-on-girl bondage movies from a work (Gov't) computer, I'd deserve just as much condemnation as this guy does. Likewise if I was collecting kiddie pics - or even stealing office supplies. But y'all are pretending that the criminal aspect of all this is immaterial. If Karl Rove was one of her clients, I want it on every front page - methinks the reason you find it so unimportant is that it is just as likely to have been Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi as Karl Rove or Tricky Dick


Why did you quote me?Is this question recursive?

Its not about political sides. Its about something that is illegal for religious morality reasons.

If it had been 100 years ago and the guy had recived oral sex from his wife then it would also have been illegal and we still wouldnt have condemed him for it but you probably would have.

Some laws are just wrong.

Its not about political sides. Its about something that is illegal for religious morality reasons.

If it had been 100 years ago and the guy had recived oral sex from his wife then it would also have been illegal and we still wouldnt have condemed him for it but you probably would have.Depending on how I'm feeling at the moment, I might agree with you. I'm just as uncommitted / undecided on drug legalization as I am about this, but under existing circumstances I don't endorse either. Here in the U.S. we can't even handle alcohol or cigarettes responsibly, so I can't support hookers & drugs for all.


Some laws are just wrong.So to you that means that disobeying them is a good thing. To me it doesn't; until a law <is> changed, individuals are bound (by law) to obey it. Lest this turn to a discussion over Intellectual Property law, which is (depending on one's opinion) immoral, unethical, irresponsible, and unenforceable, suffice it to say that I'd be just as outraged if it turned out that Tommy Tancredo was swapping .MP3's over the NIPRNET (which he can't).

The letter of the law is what we're talking about, and the individuals in question are members of our representative Gov't. I want them beaten daily to encourage the others.

So to you that means that disobeying them is a good thing.

No to me it means: The justice system gets to take its course but I wont go any extra miles to condem what he has done or inflate it in an attempt to bring it to as many peoples attention as possible.


The letter of the law is what we're talking about, and the individuals in question are members of our representative Gov't. I want them beaten daily to encourage the others.

The difference to me between laws I agree with and disagree with is:

If I see a man paying some hooker then taking a ride with her. Il be thinking to myself "heh have a good time you, remember to wear that condom"

I certainly wont report it to the police, That girl has a living to make and that man a reputation he doesnt want smeared with something the religious nuts had banned. The religious people are the only reason its banned in the first place and if we listened to them for morality advice we would stone homosexuals to death and the same for women accused of cheating and children who didnt behave.

If he gets taken in by the police Il think its a damn shame but I wont jump the cops and demand his release because its a "wrong" law.

Now on the other hand if I see a man steal some ladys purse then Il clock him right then and there and be glad when the police drags him off because" theft" is a law I agree with.

But y'all are pretending that the criminal aspect of all this is immaterial.
It pretty much is, to me at least.

If Karl Rove was one of her clients, I want it on every front page
Is that really an image you want to have in your mind? :laugh:

No to me it means: The justice system gets to take its course but I wont go any extra miles to condem what he has done or inflate it in an attempt to bring it to as many peoples attention as possible.I've got a different view regarding this, and not simply because I've been held responsible for other people's conduct. The reason I want to castigate illegal misconduct by politicians & political appointees is because of their elevated status. We can't, in good conscience, cry & moan about Alberto Gonzalez canning some people because maybe someone didn't like their politics, and yet turn a blind eye to someone being a whoremonger on the public payroll. Laws are laws, ethics are ethics, but laws aren't ethics and ethics aren't law.


I certainly wont report it to the police, That girl has a living to make and that man a reputation he doesnt want smeared with something the religious nuts had banned. The religious people are the only reason its banned in the first place and if we listened to them for morality advice we would stone homosexuals to death and the same for women accused of cheating and children who didnt behave.You keep dragging religion into it. Why? Are you so blinded by religious bigotry yourself that you think only religious people are morally bigoted? And why is this in any way germane to the issue?

<If> someone isn't married and hires a hooker, it is in no way the same as someone who <is> married. If they're married, they are not only possibly breaking the law but they're also in breach of their marriage contract. In both cases, slippery slope or no, it is legal misconduct, and as far as I'm concerned, I want <my> employees to be above board in all aspects of their conduct.


Now on the other hand if I see a man steal some ladys purse then Il clock him right then and there and be glad when the police drags him off because" theft" is a law I agree with.But again, you're endorsing selective enforcement of the law. That's tantamount to corruption and/or just about every other foul political name one can throw, since it is openly the 'one law for me, and one for everyone else' principle which we supposedly find so abhorrent.

Is that really an image you want to have in your mind? :laugh:I've seen far, far worse. :lipsrsealed: And while I don't want Pay-Per-View, considering what happened to B.J. for lying under oath about his chubby (not meaning Monica) should pale by comparison <if> some of those on moral high-horses are on the client list.

Again, I'm thinking about this in a non-partisan way. But I also think it very likely that types like Robert Byrd and the Kennedy clan members are on the list, or it would have been splashed on every page of print in a <partisan> way like the Abramoff scandal was.

my name is on her list...i am not resigning though.

my name is on her list...Gilbert & Sullivan rule! (http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/135.html)

I honestly couldn't care less.

Oh noes! Someone had sex! We'd better find that person and lock them away quickly or it'll become an epidemic!

A member of the government that pays for a prostitute has opened himself to blackmail. It's a known fact that some men will sell out their country to avoid the knowledge of their infidelity be leaked. Such knowledge will not only spell the end of their career but their wives will take everything from them as well.

That's why it's a big deal. But don't let the harsh reality of the real world interfere with your fantasy.

A member of the government that pays for a prostitute has opened himself to blackmail. It's a known fact that some men will sell out their country to avoid the knowledge of their infidelity be leaked. Such knowledge will not only spell the end of their career but their wives will take everything from them as well.
Actually, that's a good point. I'll give you that.

What if, hypothetically, he had had an affair, and not with a prostitute. Still dismissal worthy?

A member of the government that pays for a prostitute has opened himself to blackmail. It's a known fact that some men will sell out their country to avoid the knowledge of their infidelity be leaked. Such knowledge will not only spell the end of their career but their wives will take everything from them as well.

That's why it's a big deal. But don't let the harsh reality of the real world interfere with your fantasy.

So doing embarassing things period should be enough to have them lose thier position?

I can think of a hundred fully legal things that could open someone up for blackmail. The best we can do is trust thier judgement that they will not sell out thier country.

So doing embarassing things period should be enough to have them lose thier position?

I can think of a hundred fully legal things that could open someone up for blackmail. The best we can do is trust thier judgement that they will not sell out thier country.

Here's one more tidbit to help beat the point into your skull: as a Gov't worker*, I have to attend yearly briefings on things like sexual harassment. In these briefings, it is discussed that not only can my actions and words be used against me in a court of law, but their interpretation by others can likewise be used. In other words, if I'm perceived as doing something illegal or immoral, it can be used against me.

Even worse, this sort of logic can be applied <outside the duty day>, meaning that if someone sees me picking my nose on my front lawn, they can accuse me of conduct unbecoming a Gov't. servant. Therefore, any of the individuals on this list are guilty of not only breaking the law, but of having participated in acts for which they could be investigated and fired.

Needless to say, this sort of mud usually only sticks to regular Federal employees and not to political appointees, but that doesn't mean the rules are not mostly the same.



* now seems a good time to reiterate once again that these views are my own and do not constitute a representation of the policies or practices of the U.S. Gov't, nor any other agency or individual but myself. Any Gov't worker is bound by law to state this, at least on occasion, when expressing their opinions in a public forum. No foolin'.

So to you that means that disobeying them is a good thing. To me it doesn't; until a law <is> changed, individuals are bound (by law) to obey it. Lest this turn to a discussion over Intellectual Property law, which is (depending on one's opinion) immoral, unethical, irresponsible, and unenforceable, suffice it to say that I'd be just as outraged if it turned out that Tommy Tancredo was swapping .MP3's over the NIPRNET (which he can't).

The letter of the law is what we're talking about, and the individuals in question are members of our representative Gov't. I want them beaten daily to encourage the others.

I, therefore, assume that you are all for Bush's impeachment and conviction for violating the FISA law. Be sure and take action (http://www.gp.org/action/index.shtml) Jman :thumbsup:

I, therefore, assume that you are all for Bush's impeachment and conviction for violating the FISA law. Be sure and take action (http://www.gp.org/action/index.shtml) Jman :thumbsup:

When I'm talking about morals and conduct, I just knew it wouldn't be long before you showed up with a bucketload of spin. :laughing:

Seriously? Yes, I'm all for impeachment & conviction <of anyone> who abused eavesdropping capabilities, with a couple of caveats. I believe we've discussed the caveats before in earlier threads? The hard fact that the supposed abuse was nothing of the kind and was directed at inbound/outbound intercontinental calls, or that the allegation is that FISA needs to be invoked regarding the data sampling techniques (obvious lunacy) rather than the actual retrieval of conversations. However, the fact that the equipment used was fully capable of being abused means that its use <should> be validated. I hardly need to bring B.J. into this again, since the abuses by his cabinet were both widespread and egregious, even though they got away with them scot-free.

But to answer you, Ill, if Shrub was really listening in on your "hotmale" phone chat as you believe he was, then he <should> be investigated & impeached. The law may be a twisted thing in many circumstances, but it is obvious that any sort of impropriety will be used by those who would destroy our nation. Hey, and I didn't even say 'liberal' that time! :jig:

The only reason he'd be open to blackmail is if he were afraid of it coming out.


Is this question recursive?

You quoted me but it didn't seem like you were addressing me.

You quoted me but it didn't seem like you were addressing me.I thought you liked seeing your own words. :rolleyes:

Of course, everyone enjoys seeing my words, I was just confused. But come to think of it, you probably quoted them just because you also enjoyed them so much, so it all makes sense now.

Of course, everyone enjoys seeing my words, I was just confused. But come to think of it, you probably quoted them just because you also enjoyed them so much, so it all makes sense now.

I knew you'd figure it out in some {self-congratulatory} way.

Time to Necro this thread.

DC Madam has taken another victim (http://rawstory.com/news/afp/US_senator_admits_to_being_client_o_07102007.html)

This time, it's a Bible belt Senator who ran on marriage and morality issues. The irony is delicious.

I thought I was the only gravedigger here...

There's obviously plenty of jockeying regards 'the list', but I definitely wonder about the pace with which this information is being fed to the media. That "Culture of Corruption" sword has two edges, and having multiple names released all at once would decrease the frenzy, if anything.

I heard at one point that Dick Morris was on it, but that sounded like wishful thinking plus political sabotage... though I read at least one place that Palfrey herself said it.

Ahhh, I never fail to be entertained by the hypocrisy of politicians. :grin:

LOL. Louisiana hasn't had a good Senator since John Breaux retired.

This time, it's a Bible belt Senator who ran on marriage and morality issues. The irony is delicious.
Not really that ironic, seeing as he had already told his wife about it years ago, and stepped right up and took responsibility for it again.

Now, if he had kept it a secret all these years, and then the story broke, I'd be right with you.