Sunday, September 23, 2007

Additons to David Vitter's Wikipedia Article Reinserted 09/22/2007


Wikipedia
--Here's the text of what will be removed either tonight or tomorrow by some very angry GOP operatives (in-spirit or fact):



TOP BIO:

Specifically, since the evening of July 9th of 2007, the public has been aware of his five calls to Pamela Martin & Associates spanning 1999-2001, which could have been repeated 'Master 9 severity' violations under District of Columbia prostitution statutes. It's unclear whether this could impair his ability to continue serving as a ranking minority member on the Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights. This is a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Another factor could cause Senator Vitter some very serious problems within the Senate: he had Senate Foreign Relations Committee oversight responsibilities over the State Department when the Palfrey scandal had broken in the Spring of 2007. These oversight failures were specifically breached by inadequate oversight (known as "oversight failures") of Randall L. Tobias, now former director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and head of USAID at the State Department. Tobias was also found in Palfrey's phone records by ABC's 20/20 in late-April of 2007. He resigned on April 27th, 2007, just one day after confirming his identity within the phone records of Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Tobias is thought to have carried a 'Top Secret security clearance' while serving at USAID.[1]

Very Bottom of the Article:

As of September 18th, 2007, there has been no serious oversight or ethics investigation of Senator Vitter. though Senate Ethics Committee probes are usually confidential at their inception. It's unclear whether any of these facts about Vitter have caught the attention of other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Ethics Committee, and other members of the Senate.

To whomever is removing the entries: they are factual, provable, and I can cut-and-paste them back at my leisure. Prove them wrong, let the ruling board of Wikipedia decide. Vigilantes aren't good deciders.

[Ed., 09.13.2008-The additions were done at-the-behest of author Bill Keisling who is the origin of the contentions. They probably true, but who cares at this points anyway? Vitter is done, put a fork in him. Wikipedia is unnecessary-at-best, a poor concept that has more to do with the opposite of the democratization of information. Do web searches, use academic sites, they're reliable. Why do you think I post links to them? Decide for yourselves. I make no apologies.]