« Where Did The Foley Story Start? | Main | More politics, more strange bedfellows »

Foley: The Plot Sickens

The ugliness that is the former Representative Mark Foley (R-FL) scandal keeps getting odder and odder -- and while remaining just as disgusting, has taken a few odd twists.

On Tuesday, Wild Bill of Passionate America sent out a press release saying he had uncovered the identity of the object of Mr. Foley's affections, and intended to reveal it. I was on his list, and excoriated him in a private e-mail for doing so. There were some profanities involved, and a request that he not bother me any more.

What Bill had not included -- and did not clarify enough for me to grasp, but that could very well be my fault -- was the key element of the expose' was that the person in question was NOT a minor at the time of the most explicit and incriminating conversations.

That changes everything.

Foley, thanks to the passage of a certain date in time, suddenly is transformed from a predatory pedophile into a more-creepy version of the kind of guy who goes for the "Barely Legal" not-quite-kiddie-porn. Morally and ethically, it matters little, but legally it's a world of difference. As an old writing teacher used to quote, it's the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.

Foley still remains a creepy degenerate swine who saw the Congressional Page program as his private harem-in-grooming, and deserved to get kicked out on his ass and eyed suspiciously by the general public for the rest of his life. But it's looking more and more like he stopped himself just short of doing anything overtly criminal. He's no Gerry Studds, more like a Gary Condit.

So, how did the story get out, and how did it get out in such an incorrect fashion? Here's one theory, one that seems to fit the available facts.

Someone finds out about Foley's fondness for young men, and his tendency to express that towards Congressional pages. They start gathering up their evidence, but they want it to get out in a way that's not traceable back to them directly. (My suspicion is either a Democratic operative or an independent whose sympathies lie in that direction.) They set up a bogus blog on Blogspot and start talking about sex predators. Then they pretend to get their Foley evidence from an "anonymous reader" and publish it. After that, it's just a matter of waiting for it to be discovered.

But then it isn't discovered. No one notices it. So they have to make sure it's discovered. They shopped it around to a variety of sources, but no one seemed to want to "bite."

Then they realize that this red meat is just the sort of thing that the slavering attack dogs at Daily Kos would be all over, so they (either directly or through a proxy) post the link to the Foley material that they "discovered" over at Kos. The Kossacks take a quick look (and since it feeds to their prejudices and baser instincts) and run like hell with it. With the compression of the news cycle and the instant access to information we have today, Foley is Dead Representative Walking and quits in record time.

It would be very fascinating to see the originating IP of that person who posted it on Kos. Could they be linked back to the bogus blog? Or was it someone at one of the organizations offered the information, and disagreed with the decision to ignore it? The Kos people, who are paranoid (and rightly so) about getting set up, first thought the "WHInternNow" person who linked to the bogus blog in the first place.

I'm not holding my breath, though. That action would require Kos and his Kossacks to act like responsible netizens, and that is a very foreign concept to them. I suspect they did a quick check to see if they could pin it on a conservative, then assured themselves they'd done an adequate job of fact-checking the matter.

The person who exposed Foley did the right thing, but it's starting to look more and more like they did it in the wrong way. This has the signatures of a "political hit," carefully timed and arranged to do the maximum political damage to the Republican party very close to the election. That means that instead of exposing Foley and his deviant ways as soon as they could, the let him continue posing a potential threat to young men until the timing suited the exposer's agenda -- and that is utterly despicable. Had Foley actually committed any overt acts against an underaged person during that time, the exposer would have shared in the moral responsibility for allowing it to happen.

So, to sum up: Foley is a loathsome scumbag, and deserves public scorn and suspicion for the rest of his days. The person who exposed him did the nation a favor by doing so. But if -- IF -- that person sat on the information until such time as suited their own political agenda, then they, too, ought to be held up for public contempt.

They remind me of the firefighter who, in order to be seen as a hero, starts fires that he can then extinguish -- or, in this case, let the fire get more intense before rushing to the rescue. There's a reason we lock those people up, instead of giving them medals.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Foley: The Plot Sickens:

» Doug Ross @ Journal linked with Deep inside the Democratic planning bunker...

» Ex-Donkey Blog linked with Threads Of Foley Plot Beginning To Unravel

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Video: Russert discusses Foley sex scandal

» La Shawn Barber's Corner linked with Foleygate: Citizen Journalism Rears Its Head

» Dumb Ox News linked with Foley Plot Sickens? or, Rathergate Redux?

» The Thunder Run linked with Web Reconnaissance for 10/05/2006

Comments (166)

Soooo, now we deflect the s... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Soooo, now we deflect the story from the folks responsible for the story occurring to those dirty dastards on the left. I have to hand it to you righties you have been well schooled by Lee Atwater/Karl Rove.

Toss out a bone -what a rotten so and so that Foley is. Then change the subject as rapidly as possible. The folks who shout from the rooftops about "personal responsibility" and "values" change the subject as fast as you can. Hardly a word about the "responsibility" of those who may have covered this up. Not a word about the "value(s)" of those like Hastert and other leaders of the party of values who have given so many different stories they can't remember which one is the one of the day.

Actually, if it turns out to be a "nefarious" "political" trick by those dirty rotten scoundrel lefties I'd think you'd be standing and applauding. Remember Atwood and the Willy Horton ad designed to stir up racism and fear? Remember the smear campaign against McCain in 2000 with the phony claim about his "illegitimate black baby?" And the illegitimate daughter? Remember in 2000 when Murdoch's NY Post claimed Hillary called one of Bill's aides a fu***** jew bastard? Remember the 2002 smear of Max Cleland as unpatriotic? Remember how whenever there was bad news for Mr Bush in 2004-2005 there just happened to be elevations in that silly terror alert?

So , forget what really happened here, and hand the (maybe) messenger(s). If that's not typical of your bankrupt ideology I don't know what it.

The crazies may now respond with your litany of dem dirty tricks because as usual you can't stand up and own what this scandal is really all about. A corrupt congressional party with corrupt leadership.

Funny you should bring up W... (Below threshold)

Funny you should bring up Willie Horton, Hugh. He was first made a political issue in the Democratic primaries back in 1988 -- by Al Gore. So kindly share a little of your venom towards him, will ya?

Oh, and I think you mean "Atwater." Yeah, I remember Lee Atwater -- in fact, I mentioned him a week or two ago.

I don't recall the "smears" of Cleland as "unpatriotic." I recall a certain questioning of his judgment and positions that some people categorized as such, but nothing like what you make it out to be.

OK, that's enough of your crap. Nice attempt at deflecting the issue, but do a little more homework first next time.

J.

Well....with this post we a... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Well....with this post we are seeing clear evidence that there really is a disorder among the right. It has been called CRS, short for Condi Rice Syndrome, a pathologial innability to identify and accept reponsibility and a frantic, panic, flailing attempt at obfuscation.

It's getting crowded over at Republican Rehab.

Hardly a word abou... (Below threshold)
Mike:
Hardly a word about the "responsibility" of those who may have covered this up.

I know you're a liberal so reality isn't your strong suit... but I believe you'll find a few entries on this very blog that state that anyone involved in 'keeping this quiet' should be prosecuted. In fact, I beleive you posted on those entires. Keep trying, sport.

Some unrepentant Republican... (Below threshold)
Big Hugh:

Some unrepentant Republicans are grasping at straws.
So one of the pages was 18 at the time. So now we can all walk away and ignore the behavior and cover-up. You think there was only one? How about Foley showing up drunk at the page's dorm? What other behavior has yet to surface in coming weeks? You are not only morally and ethically blind, you are politically stupid.

Michelle Malkin and Richard Viguerie have it right on this one, listen to what they say.

Jay:That post soun... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Jay:

That post sounded a bit like the "Bush blew up the WTC and the levies" to me. When some 50 year old Hollywood star marries a 20 something starlet, everybody sayes "whow!", but no one calls him a "scum bag". The fact that Foley was possibly after a barely legal young man might not suite your fancy, but it doesn't rank on the send him straight to hell list.

As for Hugh and lava, Foley is not the entire, nor even representative of, Republican Party. You are so blinded by your hatred of the Bush administration, that you are incapable of puting up even remotely interesting comments. We understand that "you hate Bush", please try saying something else once in a while.

So let me get this straight... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

So let me get this straight ...

You discover that a Congressman is preying on Congressional pages, teens 16 to 18 years old. But instead of immediately going forward to the police or other appropriate authorities, you decide to sit on the information until five weeks to an election so you can help your party win.

And you think you deserve a medal? How morally bankrupt is that? Foley is already a condemned man. And we need to find out who had this information from 2003 and held on to it until now.

It's like discovering someone sat passively by as a woman was being raped and only leaped into action when he saw cameras. If you think that person deserves only praise then you are almost as sick as he is.

And to be honest, I'm sick and tired of the "Poor Victimised Willie Horton" myth that's become such an article of faith on the Left. It's untrue (the Bush Campaign did not run that ad) remarkably insulting to African Americans.

Did Willy Horton rape and torture two people while out on Dukakis' furlough program? Yes? Was he not the most notorious recidivist in the furlough program in Massachusetts even before the ad? Then why the heck should I care if he's the color of the sky on a bright summer day?

I've seen that ad. It made no reference to his race other than showing his picture. The ad would still have been as effective if Horton had been white. He's a rapist and murderer, Hugh, not the saint you Lefties have turned him out to be.

When I look at him, I see a rapist, torturer and first degree murderer. That is what he is. That was why Al Gore was the first person to introduce him into the 1988 campaign during the Democrat Presidential Primaries.

But you, Hugh, look at him and only see his race. So who is the racist here, Hugh? How come after everything he has done; the raping, the torturing and murdering, how come the only thing about him that looms largest for you is the color of his skin?

As predicted, the early ret... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

As predicted, the early returns are in. Nary a mention of part 2 of the sandal....the bankrupt congressional leadership.

Mike - I did a cursory review of the blogs and comments on this site since the story broke. About 8 blogs with about 700 or so comments. Maybe 10% from the right address the issue of the leadership and hold them to account.

USMC - I don't believe Foley is typical of the Republican party either. Most are good decent folks just as most dems are. What is too typical today is the corruption of the leadership of your party. That's self evident.
I've said a million times I don't hate Bush. I despise him. There is a difference between the two.

Martin - all I have to say is a picture is worth a thousand words. I don't see Willie Horton as a victim of anything. I see Lee Atwater and Karl Rove as completely without principle.

I have no sympathy whatever... (Below threshold)

I have no sympathy whatever for Foley. By all accounts, he's a creep and a predator. He deserves the disgrace he's brought on himself.

That said, and regardless of whether the story is true or not, does any grown-up believe this was not a carefully timed political dirty trick right out of the DNC official playbook? This story has 'engineered scandal' written all over it. Go read the Radar article at http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/the-bogus-blog-behind-foleys-fall.php.

Martin - all I have to ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Martin - all I have to say is a picture is worth a thousand words.

Would you be objecting to the ad if Horton had been white? If your only reason for objecting to Horton ad is the fact that Horton is black ...

In other words, you saw a sadistic rapist and murderer but because he was black, all you saw was the color of his skin.

So you naturally made the assumption that was what everybody else would see. Not a rapist and murderer .. but the everyday black man.

There's something wrong with you, Hugh. Very wrong.

Foley is scum. Period.... (Below threshold)
Faith+1:

Foley is scum. Period.

If the Repubs leadership covered for him they are scum too.

the Dems had better learn that one thing the public will think is worse than a pedophile is someone who would cover up for him until they could use it for political advantage.

Whatever party handles this badly will have it blow up in their face this November. If the Left thinks this is a slam dunk issue for them they underestimate the backlash potential if it is revealed they covered it up too.

Even my most ardent BDS afflicted left wing liberal lesbian couple living next door find the thought that someone sat on this for political gain to be worse than the scum bucket Foley.

Someone getting tagged as letting a pedophile continue just so they can continue to score political points will NOT go over well in a majority of American homes regardless of the political party.

One quibble with Faith's co... (Below threshold)

One quibble with Faith's comment:

"Whatever party handles this badly will have it blow up in their face this November."

Both parties are already handling it very badly. The question is, which will handle it worse? That's what will decide November's elections.

Unless, of course, the NEXT scandal bumps this off the radar.

J.

Hugh:hate: to have... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

hate: to have strong dislike or ill will for; loathe; despise

Sounds pretty much the same to me. If you had directed your dislike towards his policies, as opposed to him personaly, I could understand it, but making it a personal thing gains you nothing.

I have to wonder what it is that stirs you up so much. The economy is great, unemployment is low, he used a liberal approach to education (throw money at it), has not sealed the borders, does not veto the pork comming out of congress, and although given many opportunities, doesn't make fun of Nancy Pelosi. Sounds like a perfect Democratic president to me. Aah, it must be Iraq. If so, you are hanging your hat on the biggest looser for the DNC in November.

Martin, your ignorance is m... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin, your ignorance is mind boggling. The ad would never have been aired under the blessing of Atwater/Bush were Horton white. That's the point. It was as obvious as the nose on your face. It was race baiting/fear mongering at its best. Atwater was proud of it.

I see people like Hugh comi... (Below threshold)
MichaelC:

I see people like Hugh coming onto this forum only to fan the flames of discontent, rarely if ever to offer vision and ideas for a better future. Any damage that you can conceive of doing to those causes and entities whose view of things differ from your own are vilified and negated, dispensed with at the flick of your wit, which comes nowhere near amounting to the erudition you imagine.

If others offer a different view from those like yourself who arrive here burdened with agenda, your disdain and accusations fly like spittle from a madman's raging mouth in his mindless fury that any should contend with him.

There are truths you do not wish to see because they do not support your antagonism to conservatives, but rather offer a somewhat more well considered and investigated view than the shallow hatred you attempt to pass off as wisdom from God knows where.

None of the people who think to come here and take down their opponents through clever and base manipulation of facts and events that we too are aware of and that we too understand, seem to think that there could possibly be truth anywhere but in their own minds and on their own lying lips.

The only thing your kind will ever accept from the other side of the aisle is that those unlike yourselves must all fall upon the sword you proffer and refrain from challenging your absurd interpretation of these things, such thinly constructed rhetoric that it's hardly worth the time it takes to rebuke.

Hugh, don't you mean Atwood... (Below threshold)

Hugh, don't you mean Atwood? Your mythical bogeyman from your first comment?

Heaven forfend you acknowledge that I had to correct your own attempts to derail the conversations, and fix YOUR talking points.

Goober.

J.

USMCMy feelings ab... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

USMC

My feelings about Bush come from the man and his policies both. As for the man, I see him as a hypocrite....a man who talks out of both sides of his mouth (I suppose one could say that about most politicians but I'm only talking about him at the moment). A man unwilling to admit mistakes, a man who has no curiosity, a man who preaches compassion on the one hand and signed death warrants with the other. Just a few reasons why I despise him as the man.

As for his policies. I don't know where you live but where I do the economy has not benefited most of the people. The middle class has gotten no great benefits from his policies. I think throwing money at education as the solution is idiotic and more pandering on his part. He doesn't make fun of people or do the dirty work - just his surrogates at every opportunity.

As for Iraq...it is the issue that is killing him and his party more than any other. You must live on another planet if you can't see or admit that.

Hugh

Hugh:When I reques... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

When I requested that you post something other than "I hate Bush", I was in hopes that it might be something responsible. Your post to Martin made absolutely no sense at all, and you have no evidence of any of it. Your saying the RNC would have passed up a golden opportunity just because it was a white man?

Jay, an intelligent reply a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay, an intelligent reply about a typo. Make you feel big?

As for Horton. The history is clear. Gore never brought up Horton in the debate. He brought up the furlough program. Atwater (spelled ok now?) chortled and crowed about the ad. It was deliberately intended. Deny all you want. The truth is the truth. That's pne of the problems with some of you folks. The truth hits you in the face and you do what wingnuts are so good at doing. Simply say it didn't happen.

Keep on trucking -Barney

MC:Multisyllabic v... (Below threshold)
epador:

MC:

Multisyllabic verbiage addressed to trolls =

pearls to swine.

What strikes me most abour Foley's transgressions is that they are again a person in power preying on low level employees. That kind of behavior immediately violates sexual harrassment boundaries. Forget the age or sex of the individuals targeted. Such individuals do not belong in our democratic government.

Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle of both the Senate and House would have many empty seats if this standard were upheld. I say unfortunately not because I think it shouldn't happen, but because it hasn't.

Hugh:Funny how dif... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Hugh:

Funny how different people see things. I see President Bush, although I dissagree with him on many issues, as one of the few presidents in my life time to be firm in his beliefs and to stick with them despite the polls. A quality that I much admire.

As to the economy, I'm sure you can always say that someone, somewhere isn't doing well, but it is judged by the national statistics, not how well your neighbor is doing.

Jay plays three card monty ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jay plays three card monty with the truth --

"..the key element of the expose' was that the person in question was NOT a minor at the time of the most explicit and incriminating conversations."

but there is this:

"The young man clearly was under 18-years-old when at least one of the IM conversation took place, "i'm not 18 till feb 23" and Foley's trolling for young teen boys was hardly a Hill secret. - Kevin Aylward - Wizbang Blog

I guess Jay doesn't read Wizbang!

Jay continues his three card monty, ignoring the truth again --

"if -- IF -- that person sat on the information until such time as suited their own political agenda, then they, too, ought to be held up for public contempt."

And now we know that Hastert knew three years ago about Foley's problem - and sat on the information.

A longtime chief of staff to disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., approached House Speaker Dennis Hastert's office more than three years ago, repeatedly imploring senior Republicans to help stop Foley's advances toward teenage male pages, the aide said Wednesday.

So where is Jay's contempt for Hastert, the party responsible for sitting on the information for three years? You won't find Hastert mentioned once in Jays post.

Instead, it's just a fast hand of three card monty with the truth.

We saw this in the 2004 elections -- bloggers playing fast and free with the facts in an attempt to fool the voters. They discredit the maisnstream media, hoping to fill the information void with their lies instead -- sinking to lows such as Jay's deflection of responsibility away from Republicans and over to those liberals -- who you know if you read Wizbang! are in bed with terrorists, by the way...

Wake up America, there is an enemy of the truth within our borders, and they want your vote.

Lee:Take off your ... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Lee:

Take off your rose colored glasses, and reread Jay's post. He is quite clear in his condemnation of everyone involved in any cover up. He simply suggest that the Dems are equally guilty if they withheld this to drop it just before the elections.

"Wake up America, there is ... (Below threshold)
Jim B.:

"Wake up America, there is an enemy of the truth within our borders, and they want your vote." -
Who is the enemy? The same people that try to impose speech codes and shut show a talk radio show in Seattle (USSR? Nazi?) because they didn't like what they were saying? Or threatened a network with loss of license over a factual movie? Who is the enemy?

Martin, your ignorance ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Martin, your ignorance is mind boggling. The ad would never have been aired under the blessing of Atwater/Bush were Horton white. That's the point. It was as obvious as the nose on your face. It was race baiting/fear mongering at its best.

No.

Unlike you, I do not believe it is ignorance if I do not believe Democrat mythology about all Republicans being racists.

Fact: Horton, a convicted first degree murderer, was released on Dukakis' furlough program and from there he went on to Maryland where he raped and tortured a couple over a period of more than 48 hours. He was the furlough program's most famous and brutal recidivist bar none.

Bush's line of attack was that Dukakis was soft on crime. I have seen the ad. Contrary to what your beliefs about black people tells you, it was effective precisely because of what Willie Horton did, not his race.

There was no other reference to Horton's race apart from his mug shot. Are mug shots suddenly racist? I defy you to explain to me what difference a white man's picture would have made to the ad if Horton had been white.

Would you be more supportive of the furlough program if Horton had been white? Was it his crimes or his race that should bother you the most?

So I don't care what you imagine to have been on Lee Atwater's mind. What I do know now is that what sticks in your mind when you see a black murderer, sadist and rapist, is the color of his skin. And somehow, you've come to believe that's what everyone else sees.

Now that we have establishe... (Below threshold)
bill:

Now that we have established the BJs aren't sex, we now know the left considers typing on keyboards sex. Good to know when you are dealing with lefties.

I'm glad to see the lefts version of the truth is out there, as Howard Dean says. But, I didn't know truth came in versions, but Dean does, so it must be true.

Anyone for a round a Plame lies?

Wake up America, there is a... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Wake up America, there is an enemy of the truth within our borders, and they want your vote.
------------------------------------------------
Thank you Lee for speaking the truth about the Dems whether you know it or not. The more we know the more we find out how dishonest and corrupt the Dem party has become.

No decent American who claims to care about the truth and the country can vote for the Dems.

I think I'm going to hold o... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

I think I'm going to hold off on debating this one for awhile. There are still too many 'if's' to my liking

Hugh, Lee, and Condi Rice S... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Hugh, Lee, and Condi Rice Syndrome Man have one very big, fundamental problem.

They argue that the leadership of the Democratic Party in the House is more moral and responsible than the Republican leadership.

That is an absolute f'n howler if there ever was one.

Please. The party of Barney Frank, partial birth abortion, etc are intellectually, as well as morally bankrupt. Ms. Pelosi's vineyard employees illegals, but she speachifies that she is the saviour of the unions.

Please.

USMC Pilot: "Take off yo... (Below threshold)
Lee:

USMC Pilot: "Take off your rose colored glasses, and reread Jay's post. He is quite clear in his condemnation of everyone involved in any cover up"

How can you condemn "everyone involved' and not mention Hastert? and insinuate that it is some grand conspiracy instead? That's not condemnation - that's an attempted coverup of the truth.

Watch the cards, Pilot. Jay's playing pretty fast with the truth on this one... There will be an ethics committee investigation targeting Hastert - and I wouldn't be surprised if Hastert does the wrong thing and holds onto his post -- keeping this steamy pile of Republican misdirection in the news for a long time.

Hastert should resign.

Can Foley be charged with a... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Can Foley be charged with a crime? If not, how can anyone else be charged with a crime? If so, then an investigation needs to be done along with FBI subpeonas to dig down to the mystery blogger.

Maybe I am politically naive, but what does this have to do the issues? I am more concerned with who's going to protect the borders and keep us safe from terrorists than who knew what, when where and how. That's for investigators to worry about.

Martin:I don't hav... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Martin:

I don't have to imagine what was in Atwater's mind here's a quote from him:

Atwater:" You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'Nigger, nigger...."

Now go learn the truth. Research. Read.

To his credit, while dying he repented for much of the filth he spewed. But then you probably didn't know that either.

Martin You disc... (Below threshold)

Martin

You discover that a Congressman is preying on Congressional pages, teens 16 to 18 years old. But instead of immediately going forward to the police
Stop right there

Don't go any further. Right now, tell me what police agency should have been called in and under what statute should Foley be charged?

Go on, Martin. Find me some facts.

Then realize that this is not some friggin' TV show.

The emails to the anonymous 16 y/o were neither sexual nor legally actionable. Foley was confronted by them internally and told to "knock it off." The IM's were revealed on Friday and Foley resigned the same day. The IM's were turned over to the FBI but not by the people who have held on to them for months.

And still, those IM's have yet to be determined to have violated any LAW.

Foley has exploited his position of power. He's a reprobate, irregardless of sexual orientation. Using the page system to watch for adolescents he then made contact with after they left the page system is creepy on the scale of Woody Allen "grooming" his quasi-adopted daughter through childhood to be his wife.

Foley should never be in any position of trust ever again.

But what has he done that rises to the charge of "child molestation" as Democrats are charging? (ie Patty Wetterling)

The rank hypocrisy from Dems is breathtaking.

Both parties are a... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Both parties are already handling it very badly.

Clearly, the GOP leadership's negligent refusal to investigate is a bipartisan problem.

This will only be a political loser for the GOP if it doesn't hold its own accountable, which is looking more and more likely.

From MIchelle Malkin:... (Below threshold)
Wendy:

From MIchelle Malkin:

Maf54 (7:53:45 PM): in your shorts and polo shirt? Maf54 (7:55:42 PM): shows your package then Xxxxxxxxxx (8:33:29 PM): ya slow things down a little im still young...like under 18 dont want to do anything illegal...im not 18 till feb 23

ABC News now has obtained 52 separate instant message exchanges, which former pages say were sent by Foley, using the screen name Maf54, to two different boys who began their exchanges with Foley at the age of 16 and 17, and continued through the age of 18.

Rasmussen Reports.
Sixty-one percent (61%) of American adults believe that Republican leaders have been "protecting [Mark] Foley for several years." A Rasmussen Reports national opinion survey conducted Tuesday and Wednesday nights shows that only 21% believe that the leadership "just learn[ed] about Foley's problems last week."

Nice try! Maybe there's some other predator you can help out.

Longtime Republican was sou... (Below threshold)
Wendy:

Longtime Republican was source of e-mails
http://www.hillnews.com
By Alexander Bolton

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

The lewd IM's came from the pages themselves who saw the e-mail story on ABC.

Here's the National Sex Offender Registry for other predators who need a helping hand. http://www.familywatchdog.us/

Nice try! Maybe there's som... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Nice try! Maybe there's some other predator you can help out.
---------------------------------------------------
Good point about the people who have been trying to hide these IMs until now in disregard for the welfare of these children. What can we do about other predators like Clinton?

Yup and again the Dems are using their disgusting dirty trick again with Wetterling ad. ABC, Wetterling, and the Dem party don't have anything but dishonesty as a campaign tactics now. Yup the economy is real and strong (Dow Jones hitting record level), Iraqui tribal leaders eager to fight the terrorists ...

The right thing was done for Foley already. The right thing wasn't done for Clinton for example. He is still around and the Dems still elected his wife to be a senator.

Wendy, Thanks for t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Wendy,
Thanks for the source. Here is an article from you link. I think you can agree that we should seek sworn testimony from the Dems so that we can have a real investigation.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news3.html
North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry called on Democratic leaders yesterday to testify under oath about when they knew of former Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) Internet communications with a House page.

Is anyone else interested i... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Is anyone else interested in how many other members of Congress have been using the pages as their personal dating service?? Does anyone honestly believe Foley's the onle one?? That's probably the real reason why Foley wasn't quietly told not to run for reelection because he's not the only one using the pages in this manner.

The theory that the Rep leadership didn't "out" Foley because Foley could hold the seat that no one else could doesn't really make much sense when you look at the partisan breakdown of the district. It's something like 47-32 Rep-Dem. Are you saying that a different Rep couldn't win with those numbers??

Right now, tell me what ... (Below threshold)
DDT:

Right now, tell me what police agency should have been called in and under what statute should Foley be charged??

Here you go...

FBI to question former aide about Foley scandal

Shorter Darleen:
"Ooof!! I hit myself again!
Ow! And Again!"

Oh I do know about Lee Atwa... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Oh I do know about Lee Atwater, Hugh. I know he was quite fond of bare-knuckle politics. Remember the "Jumper Cables" thing? But I'd like a cite so I can read your quote fully.

And even then, I do not know that your quote had anything to do with the Left's fantasy that the Willie Horton ad was an appeal to the average white voter's Inner Nazi because he was black, not horror because he was a monster.

And once again, it was not the Bush Campaign that sponsored or released the Willie Horton ad. The National Security PAC produced the ad (it was called "Weekend Passes") in support of, but independent of the Bush campaign.

The ad "Revolving Doors" officially produced by the Bush campaign, on the same theme, featured 19 furloughed murderers, rapists, etc., sixteen white, two black and one Latino.

The Willie Horton ad would have run even if Horton (the most notorious of Massachussetts furloughed re-offenders) had been white because the issue, as the vast majority of Americans recognized it, was one of crime, not race.

But the Left simply can not see beyond Willie Horton's race.

So do you have a quote by Atwater saying anything particularly about the Willie Horton ad? Or accepting responsibility for the National Security PAC campaign ads?

What part of Willie Horton being a sadistic rapist and murderer is so hard for you to comprehend? Help me understand why that part is so much less important to you than the color of his skin?

Darleen ...<blockquo... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Darleen ...

Stop right there

Don't go any further. Right now, tell me what police agency should have been called in and under what statute should Foley be charged?

Go on, Martin. Find me some facts.

Relax, calm down and take a breath.

Look around at my other posts on this subject on this and the other threads.

I'm on your side here.

"But it's looking more a... (Below threshold)

"But it's looking more and more like he stopped himself just short of doing anything overtly criminal. He's no Gerry Studds, more like a Gary Condit."

Wouldn't that make him *exactly* like Gerry Studds? From your linked wikipedia article:

"Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors - in Studds's case, a 1973 relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page who was of the age of legal consent, according to state law at the time. The relationship was consensual, but presented ethical concerns relating to working relationships with subordinates."

I don't think anyone ever suggested Studds behavior was criminal. It was a morally reprehensible action by a "creepy degenerate swine" that earned him a censure by the House. But, it was perfectly legal.

Joe

Once again the right wing l... (Below threshold)
madmatt:

Once again the right wing lowers itself to cover for the hateful, deceitful scum that composes its membership..Go ahead and find me a recent sex scandal involving a democrat and AN UNDERAGE member of either sex...I will find you 3 more recent examples of rethugs and the underage! Come on taking all challengers here.

Also remember you have ripped on clinton for a decade or so now so shove it...at least she was willing and 22!

milco:"Is anyone els... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

milco:
"Is anyone else interested in how many other members of Congress have been using the pages as their personal dating service?? "

Oh, yeah. I think many congresspersons from both sides of the aisle (in more ways than one), are thinking this is a huge Pandora's Box.

From now on, I think we should demand to see ALL correspondence between Congressional adults and ANY young Pages, past or present. It's for the children's sake, after all. If you oppose it, you are 'protecting pedophiles'.

Any whiff or rumor of creepy emails or behavior slightly strange should immediately trigger an Investigation. Oh, how the Libs will squeal over that! (and rightly so, IMHO, but 'rightly' doesn't matter here anymore, does it?) Nobody will dare oppose this, will they? If you do you are 'protecting pedophiles', right?

The precedent has been set so let's put the pedal to the metal and start digging into ALL of these politicians email, IMs, etc.. if there is even a rumor of flirting with Pages, or legal-but-young people, or sexual harrassment of any kind.

That's essentially what the Dems are demanding. I hope they get it.


According to Wendy ...... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

According to Wendy ...

The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.

That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.

Which just goes to show that she (Wendy) has not been paying attention. The e-mails themselves were harmless innocuous chat that the parents and the teenager in question requested not to be pursued any further. So it really doesn't matter if the guy who provided the e-mails to the Press was a Republican or not.

It's the IMs that are an entirely different kettle of fish.

Where did they come from? They date from 2003 so somebody knew about them and sat on them for quite some time, while Foley was still preying on vulnerable youngsters, waiting for a politically opportune moment.

That's simply despicable.

PS: After seeing the antics of the New York Times and the Washington Post, not to mention Rathergate, I do not trust anonymous sources and I see no reason why I should take The Hill's word for it that the person they're talking about is an actual Republican.

Les,I agree that t... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Les,

I agree that this is going to turn into Pandora's Box. Someone's going to look at the seats involved, do the math and then decide whether or not to pull the trigger because it will be bloody. However, it's probably long overdue. I don't care what party you're in, you shouldn't be hitting on pages.

Now the ugly little secret we'll probably discover is that a lot of highly placed Congressional staffers got their start because, as pages, they were flirting with members of Congress, and used the representative's lust against them to get a job on Capitol Hill.

If human nature is indicative, this one is going to get real ugly before it goes away.

Jay, you're an idiot.... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane!:

Jay, you're an idiot.

"Foley, thanks to the passage of a certain date in time, suddenly is transformed from a predatory pedophile into a more-creepy version of the kind of guy who goes for the "Barely Legal" not-quite-kiddie-porn. Morally and ethically, it matters little, but legally it's a world of difference."

Having an interest in post-pubescent people clearly falls outside the definition of pedophilia, and I told you that yesterday. I suggest you stop using that word as your use of it constitutes libel per se. Pedophilia is an entirely different charge from flirting with 16-18 year olds, and you have no reason to believe there is any truth behind your accusation that he is a predatory pedophile.

Flirting with teenagers is creepy and disgusting, but not actionable unless it rises to the level of harassment, and I have not heard any evidence that it has. Has Foley persisted after pages asked him to stop? Have they complained? Has he actually hooked up with any pages? I don't know the answers to those questions.

"So, to sum up: Foley is a loathsome scumbag, and deserves public scorn and suspicion for the rest of his days."

And you say this because he engaged in explicit flirtation with a consenting adult? I think it's time to recalibrate your outrage meter, dude. You're way over the top on this one.

When I hear evidence that he persisted after requests to stop, or that he had sex with minors, then my personal outrage meter will climb a few points. But for now, that needle is pretty flaccid.

Also remember you have ripp... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also remember you have ripped on clinton for a decade or so now so shove it...at least she was willing and 22!
--------------------------------------------------
You don't want to use your own stanard now? What is the big deal about 18 years old, right? You guys are talking about morality, not legality, right? Foley was despicable for what he did. So was Clinton. He is a predator preying on a young woman under his authority. He was sued for sexual harassment by Dem women. He was alleged to rape a woman. What did the Dems do, they lied, made excuse, and attacked the victims on his behalf. THey elected his wife, an enabler for this predator, to the Senate. Clinton also pardoned a convicted child sex abuser (Reynold who was sentenced to 6 years in prison).

Studds wasn't booted out of Congress; he was kept there until he retired.

Barney Frank who allowed his residence to be used as a prostitution ring. He is still in Congress to day.

But you do have a point that since the Dems are totally immersed in the sewage, that doesn't excuse the Reps to be knee-deep in the sewage. But anyone who claim to care about children and women, simply cannot vote for the Dems.

My lord...it's the GOP that... (Below threshold)
Roger:

My lord...it's the GOP that was in charge of the House of Reps, this caucaus since 1994...and somehow the Dems know about this or should manage this? The Dems were purposefully kept outta of the loop.

Pages were warned by GOP staffers to stay away from Foley. This is a cover-up of a predator in their midst.

The moral party of personal accountability of which I once belonged has lost its way and is a stinking pile of corruption, predatory behavior, torture, and incompetence...across the board they have truly made a mess of things. And their only defense is: "The Dems would make a bad situation worse" - Unbelievable, how the GOP has fallen.

To try to spin this and minimize Foley's actions or blame the messenger is morally disgusting and repungnant. You should be ashamed.

Guess what, guys. And yes ... (Below threshold)

Guess what, guys. And yes I mean Lee, Hugh, et al. This is not your blog. To come in here and demand that you be the one to set the parameters for the discussion is, well, the epitome of self-serving bull hockey. You might as well just say that bringing up anything besides those filthy Republicans is off limits because of your delicate sensibilities.

I haven't seen one person here defend Foley's actions, but that hasn't stopped you from accusing others of doing just that. How many times does Jay have to say that anyone, anyone, found to have been withholding information should be horsewhipped? It's okay for some of you to attack the entire Republican Party, Hastert, and everyone commenting, but not okay for some here to question all the other factors surrounding this issue. Hugh can scream bloody murder about what is in Atwater's heart, but 'lo if anyone implies that this issue could transend the boundaries between parties.

It's been firmly established that Foley is a creep. We're simply trying, through what was hoped to be civil dialog, who the enablers are/were. And while no one here has asserted in any way that Republicans are not guilty of anything, we get vehement denials from the left if there is any suspicion that Democrats could be involved as well. It's as if, in your minds, as long as we can prove in some way that any Republicans were involved, then anything else is superfluous.

I've got news for you nimrods. BOTH parties are guilty.

And finally - MichaelC: that was beautiful, man.

Why won't Denny Hastert do ... (Below threshold)
fiskhus jim:

Why won't Denny Hastert do anything? Because Hastert wants to resign on his own terms - so Bush can name him ambassador to Japan!!!

Clarification:I wa... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane!:

Clarification:

I want to add that Foley's actions were an abuse of his office, they were wrong, they creep me out, and he is right to resign. Ok? What he did was bad, not good.

I'm just saying his actions do not make him a pedophile, and the outrage I hear from people like Jay is blown way out of proportion. Many of you act as though he were raping pre-school children through every orifice, including the eye sockets.

But he didn't. He was flirting with fully-developed people who possessed the maturity obtain a coveted job, to travel far from home, and take care of themselves.

hmmm..it seems the person w... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

hmmm..it seems the person who supplied the media and others in July was GOP..

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news2.html

However..the aide was alive... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

However..the aide was alive when Clinton was President...so it is Clinton by 6 degrees of seperation...

nogo I think you ca... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

nogo
I think you can agree that we should seek sworn testimony from the Dems so that we can have a real investigation.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news3.html
North Carolina Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry called on Democratic leaders yesterday to testify under oath about when they knew of former Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) Internet communications with a House page.

ah Denny your "Many of you ... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

ah Denny your "Many of you act as though he were raping pre-school children through every orifice, including the eye sockets." ..suggests you have a ver sick imagination..please keep it to yourself...

Oysster:An intere... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Oysster:

An interesting response. First, the only criticism of this whole issue from me has been the avoidance, by the majority of you, of any discussion of the responsibility of the congressional leadership.

But lets see what Jay had to say in his blog:

This has the signatures of a "political hit," carefully timed and arranged to do the maximum political damage to the Republican party very close to the election. That means that instead of exposing Foley and his deviant ways as soon as they could, the let him continue posing a potential threat to young men until the timing suited the exposer's agenda -- and that is utterly despicable. Had Foley actually committed any overt acts against an underaged person during that time, the exposer would have shared in the moral responsibility for allowing it to happen."

So it is the dems or the left who are making a political issue out of this? Instead of talking about what the real problem is it your side who wants to turn this into a dem plot. (i"ll bet you ma Please no more of your sanctimonious ruminations - and Michael C's as well.

If dems kept knowledge to themselves for political reasons they should be censured and handed whatever consequences they deserve. I have heard nothing from the right about the leadership of congress and what price they should be prepared to pay for involvement.

The holier than thou attirude of folks like you and Michael C is so incredibly disingenuous when one reads some of the filth spewed by many of the kooks from your side.

There are two aspects of th... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

There are two aspects of the way the story was released. Someone likely sat on these messages, but you can't be 100% sure they did, more like 99% sure they did.

But one thing you can be clear about is how these were released. By releasing them to the press anonymously, the serious or criminal investigation started well after Foley was aware people were on to him. He had days to delete or destroy any further incriminating evidence. If the material was given to the police or FBI, they could have done much more investigation without tipping off Foley. And when the time came, they could have gotten his home information. Most people's home computer have much more sensational material than their work computers by far. Foley may not have been any different, but the way this was released, there is little chance we will find anything now.

I get the impression Foley pushed this to the edge in terms of criminality. I suspect his hasty resignation wasn't out of panic. Where I work you have a contractual obligation to allow our employer to view our home computers if they know they have been used to conduct work. A similar agreement may exist with work related material at home with the House. If so, by quitting, he is no longer tied to that contractual obligation and therefore a court generated order of some sort is required. Foley quit to buy time.

I think it's awesome that o... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

I think it's awesome that on Bill O'Reilly's show Fox 'news' labeled Foley a Democrat. Is that the fair or the balance? Don't believe me? Look it up on Google, there are screenshots of it everywhere. I wonder if this will be spun.

More Republican family valu... (Below threshold)
Brent:

More Republican family values:

SCRANTON, Pa. - Rep. Don Sherwood, a Republican fighting for re-election in northeastern Pennsylvania, says in a TV ad that he is "truly sorry" for cheating on his wife but denies ever abusing the woman he had the affair with.

LAI...I agree....if any Dem... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

LAI...I agree....if any Dems had the same info..or complaints from paiges..they should be held accountable...however this will not happen before the election..
If the Dems are successful in Nov...will they pursue their own? I have my doubts....

They date from 2003 so s... (Below threshold)
Brian:

They date from 2003 so somebody knew about them and sat on them for quite some time.... That's simply despicable.

Umm, that would be the House leadership. When CREW got the emails in July, they didn't sit on them, they immediately turned them over to the FBI.

The House leadership had several opportunities, over several years, to investigate further. Even if what first raised an eyebrow wasn't strictly illegal, it should have at least generated concern and a quiet investigation. They did nothing. Then, years later, when the media finally learns about what they knew all along, you complain about the timing.

If the GOP took steps when they first learned about the issue, this would have been over long ago, not near an election, or never would have come to light at all. They're the ones who sat on it.

The e-mails themselves w... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The e-mails themselves were harmless innocuous chat that the parents and the teenager in question requested not to be pursued any further.

Tell the truth. If a 52 year old man exchanged those emails with your teenager, and you found out, would you dismiss them as "harmless and innocuous"?

More likely you would be outraged. But then when approached by investigators, you might choose to not pursue it to save your child from further embarrassment or mental anguish. (This is very common in child abuse cases.) And then, when it made the news, I wonder how you would feel if some random blogger dismissed them as "harmless and innocuous".

Brian,You can't po... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Brian,

You can't possibly be that naive, can you?? Are you actually claiming that the GOP leadership were the only ones who knew about this?? So if we were to look at who sponsored the pages that Foley "befriended", we'd be certain they were all party-line Republicans??

I hate to agree with Dick Morris, but I think he's right about this one. It's not a Rep or Dem scandal; it's a Congressional scandal. That's why we need to know which other members of Congress have been using the page system as their personal dating service, regardless of party affiliation, gender or sexual orientation.

Really, folks, isn't this w... (Below threshold)
JasonM in Phx:

Really, folks, isn't this whole "Foleygate" stuff a bit much? Men are loathsome pigs who think with their small head rather than their big head more often than not...Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it. Add in a little power, and men tend to give their piggish selves a little more freedom. Ok, ok. Clinton's a pig, Studds is a pig, Frank is a pig, Bill O'Reilly's a pig, Foley is a pig, Ann Coulter's a pig (I still think she's a man)...the list goes on and on and on...Enough already! What is this fricken society's absolute puritanical obsession with sex all about? Jeez!
Sexual harrassment is wrong, no argument there--much like rape, it's about using power over another, and it's less about sex--and those who engage in it should be dealt with severely.
But the age of consent? It's completely arbitrary...When I was sixteen, I wanted sex--bad!! I wanted to talk about sex, I wanted to have sex, I wanted to BE sex--24/7/365. If I had had the opportunity, I would have acted on it in a New York minute. True enough, there are plenty of sixteen and seventeen year olds who are not ready for the emotional and psychological ramifications of sexual activity...But don't we contribute to that un-ease and discomfort by constantly equating sexuality to some sort of pathology?
How can screaming "PREDATOR!!" and "PEDOPHILE!!" at the top of our lungs be any help to the discussion? It should be more a question of--Were these young people coerced or was the power differential so great that they were abused? The reason there's no real clear "moral high ground" to be taken by either side on this issue--and the reason everyone, and simultaneously no one, is to blame--is our pervasive, pernicious societal sex-phobia. That's the key pathology here, and it also happens to be the bawdy, horny, thoroughly aroused elephant in the room.

"I think it's awesome th... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I think it's awesome that on Bill O'Reilly's show Fox 'news' labeled Foley a Democrat. Is that the fair or the balance? Don't believe me? Look it up on Google, there are screenshots of it everywhere. I wonder if this will be spun."

Link - Screenshot and link to the video here (click and then scroll down).

You can't possibly be th... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You can't possibly be that naive, can you?? Are you actually claiming that the GOP leadership were the only ones who knew about this??

Not at all. All the pages knew about it, and GOP staffers knew about it. In fact, it was a GOPer who turned over the emails in the first place. If you're suggesting that Democrats knew, there has been no evidence of that. In fact, the only thing known involving Democrats is that the Republican page committee chair intentionally hid this from the Democrat on the committee.

In any case, it doesn't matter who else knew. The fact is that the House leadership knew, and did nothing. If others are also found to have known and done nothing, let them suffer the same fate, be they Republican or Democrat.

And another thing! :-) If w... (Below threshold)
JasonM in Phx:

And another thing! :-) If we're going to absolutely refuse to talk about sex in any healthy, useful dialogue kind of way, can't we just please, please move on to some real stuff? Like, for instance..oh, I don't know...43+ million Americans without health insurance, 12+ million children in poverty in America, The Iraq War-of-Choice, America's diminished standing in the global community, the Bush doctrine of using the US Constitution as toilet paper, The AIDS Plague, Runaway Deficit Spending, etc, etc, ad nauseum?

The trolls keep pointing to... (Below threshold)
hermie:

The trolls keep pointing to the GOP and saying it's the leadership's fault.

However, the Dem side has leadership as well, which was in as good a position to bring up Foley's behavior. Pelosi and the others are not living in a vacuum in the House, and they had just as much opportunity to bring complaints to the Ethics Committee, or even to Speaker Hastert.

When has Pelosi, Murtha, Rangel and the other present their evidence that they did bring it to the Ethics Committee? In the days that have gone by, not one Dem Representative has gone on record as saying they registered a complaint.

(My suspicion is either ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

(My suspicion is either a Democratic operative or an independent whose sympathies lie in that direction.)

Your spider-sense needs an adjustment. The reports have been that it was a GOP staffer. And no one has challenged those reports. And why do you immediately jump to someone with political sympathies, rather than someone with moral sympathies? I would think you would be hailing the Republican who came forward to expose a sexual predator!

That means that instead of exposing Foley and his deviant ways as soon as they could, the let him continue posing a potential threat to young men until the timing suited the exposer's agenda -- and that is utterly despicable.

Why does this keep coming up? CREW alerted the FBI "as soon as they could". ABC ran the story "as soon as they could". Please provide evidence of anyone holding onto this evidence and not exposing it "as soon as they could". Oh, that's right... the House leadership.

The timing was dictated by the House leadership as soon as they decided to keep the story quiet instead of taking care of it 1, 2, or 3 years ago. They initiated the timeline; it just didn't turn out as they expected.

Had Foley actually committed any overt acts against an underaged person during that time, the exposer would have shared in the moral responsibility for allowing it to happen.

So what you're saying is, the person who reported the deviant acts is responsible if more deviant acts occurred if they delayed their reporting, but the people who did not report the deviant acts are not responsible that more deviant acts actually did occur during the time they did not report anything.

the Dem side has leaders... (Below threshold)
Brian:

the Dem side has leadership as well, which was in as good a position to bring up Foley's behavior.

You need to read more. Shimkus intentionally withheld the emails from the Democrat on the committee.

In the days that have gone by, not one Dem Representative has gone on record as saying they registered a complaint.

That's an irrational statement. Where are the Republicans who have gone on record as saying they complained about William Jefferson? In fact, where are you on record as complaining about Jeffrey Dahmer? Hmmm?

Brian, you are placing Fole... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Brian, you are placing Foley's emails in the same category as a number of Dems are: Calling these a deviant acts, as if the emails were actually his having sex with the pages.

The emails are, to put it mildly, creepy. But these emails, while creepy are not the same thing. The IMs which were held back by person(s) and not brought to the attention of the House leadership (GOP or Dem), were worse, but you can't immediately call these acts of a pedophile (especially since at least one receipient was of legal age.).

Jason - You forgot to inclu... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jason - You forgot to include:

- The failed Social Security fix
- The failed initiative to seal our borders
- The failed Immigration changes
etc. etc

And then there's this:

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning.

One official who helped to prepare the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, described it as a "10 on a scale of 1 to 10" that "connected the dots" in earlier intelligence reports to present a stark warning that al-Qaida, which had already killed Americans in Yemen, Saudi Arabia and East Africa, was poised to strike again.

Let's mark that as Exhibit X27 - Another failed attempt by the adminstration to duck responsibility for 9/11 and pass it off as "Clinton's fault".

Brian:Are you sayi... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Brian:

Are you saying that all the pages knew about Foley, but not one page went to a Dem representative or aide, and relayed this? If Foley's behavior was so pervasive, then surely it could not be kept only on the GOP side.

and to clarify before Brian... (Below threshold)
hermie:

and to clarify before Brian has a fit..

Foley is a creep. He is a disgusting person.

But to claim like some Dems are, that the GOP covered for a pedophile, is a flat-out lie.

hermie,Don't use l... (Below threshold)
Sheik Yur Bouty:

hermie,

Don't use logic on trolls. It confuses them.

From commenter jwest over a... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

From commenter jwest over at JustOneMinute blog:

""I saw Congressman Smith (D)(Somestate) walking with the young page down a seldom-used portion of the hallway. He appeared to be showing a great deal of interest in what the page was saying, although I couldn't hear exactly what was being discussed."
"As the conversation ended, Congressman Smith reached out and touched the boy. The page moved away at that point, but I distinctly heard Mr. Smith say that he would see the boy later."

Talk about a red flag.

Although the specifics of this incident shouldn't be made public immediately, the Speaker of the House should hold a press conference to announce that "certain disturbing information" has come forward concerning Congressman Smith, and that the incident is being thoroughly investigated. Also, he should make a plea for anyone who has further information, or has suffered pedophilic harassment at the hands of Mr. Smith to come forward at this time. "


Bring.It.On.

They're asking for it, they should get it.
For those Congresspeople who aren't asking for it, but are not out there opposing the Lefties who have been pushing this issue; it'll be your own damn fault if this 'Foley Scandal' becomes the norm.

Oh well. The Hell with it. I say look at every Congressman's email, I.M's,etc.. for the last 10 years that has anything whatsoever to do with Pages. Throw every Rep or Dem out who did anything 'creepy'.

Oh, how the pigs will squeal!

hermie -- So the Dems shoul... (Below threshold)
Lee:

hermie -- So the Dems should have conducted a witch hunt on Foley? riiiiight...

Irregardless of who knew what, the reponsibility for handling the matter was Hastert's and Hastert's alone. Hastert even hid it from the Democrat on the page oversight committee, who would have forced Hastert to take action.

Hastert handled it poorly.

Hastert should resign.

JasonM in Phx:<blockq... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

JasonM in Phx:

But the age of consent? It's completely arbitrary...When I was sixteen, I wanted sex--bad!! I wanted to talk about sex, I wanted to have sex, I wanted to BE sex--24/7/365.

Arbitrary? Some lines have to be drawn to establish laws, laws that protect kids who don't have the infallible judgment your dick apparently had at that age.

If I had had the opportunity, I would have acted on it in a New York minute. True enough, there are plenty of sixteen and seventeen year olds who are not ready for the emotional and psychological ramifications of sexual activity...But don't we contribute to that un-ease and discomfort by constantly equating sexuality to some sort of pathology?

Perhaps it's a matter of personal taste, Jason. I guess some kids like to be propositioned by 50 year old men and others don't. Right?

That's the source of your misguided attempt at moral generalization. I don't see anyone talking about sex as a pathology, I do see people talking about an older and more experienced man trying to take advantage of of a younger, less experienced kid as one.
Thats where the talk of "predator" comes from. When you know full well the ramifications, the consequences and perhaps the legal wrongs and rights of the situation, whereas the one you're trying to persuade does not. That's preying on someone.

This so-called sex-phobia you describe is society's way of trying to limit the amount of 14 year old single mothers we have.


No one wants to comment on ... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

No one wants to comment on Fox's labelling of Foley as a Democrat?

No one wants to comment ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

No one wants to comment on Fox's labelling of Foley as a Democrat?

seems like a non-story to me. How 'bout that "X" on Cheney's face?

suhnami:N... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

suhnami:

No one wants to comment on Fox's labelling of Foley as a Democrat?

Wishful thinking?

Well it appears that all th... (Below threshold)
USMC Pilot:

Well it appears that all this sums up to be "all politicians are sleeze bags". But, you know what? It's our fault, because we will for the most part just keep sending them back. I know he's a sleeze bag, but at least he's my sleeze bag.

I see that the dem's like P... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I see that the dem's like Peloshi aren't too receptive to the idea that everyone give a statement 'under oath'. They can get used to the idea, it will come to that, bet your last dollar on it. Everyone involved from both parties will be in front of a special persoceutor grand jury, bet on that also, borrow another dollar. There the choice will be truth or jail, including Brian Ross who has backslid on some of his inaccurate hype and did some scrubbing on his web site at ABC.

There is a major dead jackass stink in this entire story. Any attempt to delay any of the investigations should be rightly seen as a sign of guilt.

We'll see who cooperates and who trys to delay within a couple of days.

Point of clarification: do... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Point of clarification: doesn't a "sex scandal" actually require "sex?"

All this hyperventalting makes it sound like he had a harem of young boys in bed with him a la Studds, Michael Jackson, etc.

Another question: is this all the Dems have now for a platform? Looks like it.

Who's creepier, Foley, or the Dems who are all over this, threatening to "out" others, crying "pedophile" and "molest" when the facts are otherwise?

OK, the folks on the left w... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

OK, the folks on the left want to deal with the real issue (the sexual abuse in congress and taking responsibilities). Fine, here is a proposal:

(1) Investigate the page program and all people in congress.
(2) Need to clean up congress. We have an election in a month.
Look at the facts so far: the dishonesty of the Dems is clear to all. Also the Dems are in the sewage wrt sexual abuse by their history of embracing and keeping predators among their midst. In other words, the Dems are fully immerse in the sewage. The Reps are knee-deep for now. Foley is out; so we take the Reps out of the sewage. We will need to clean them up and spank them for sure. But first, we need to plug the sewage which is the Dem party. So if we want to deal with the real problem, first get rid of as many Dems as possible and get more real "family value" oriented Reps into office (since the Dems and liberals so far seem not to care about family values at all). After we make sure the Dem sewage won't flood us all, then we can start the spanking of the Rep.

Heralder,It aint w... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

Heralder,

It aint wishful thinking my friend.


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2006/10/fox_fixes_foley.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/10/04/oreilly-factor-labels-_e_30927.html

There are several more links if you care to look.

I reported. You decide

Heralder,He... (Below threshold)
suhnami:


Heralder,

Here's a Youtube version of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn7qCzV5sNM

Enjoy

I reported. You decide<br /... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

I reported. You decide
----------------------------
I reported to you that the Dem party is in the sewage of sexual abuse and cover up. You decide whether you want to support them.

Sunhami, this is much ado a... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Sunhami, this is much ado about nothing.

Why would Fox intentionally show him as a D? Everybody who watches Fox knows who Foley is; he was on a number of the shows on a regular basis.

Maybe over at the MSM where they want the 70 year old Depends-wearers for viewers.

You need to find your conspiracies somewhere else, dude.

Brian,We're not in... (Below threshold)
millco88:

Brian,

We're not in a court of law, so evidence per se doesn't really apply. It's just plain common sense and an understanding of how people are. If enough people know something, and you've already claimed that ALL the pages knew, then doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that a large number of Dems were aware of Foley's penchant for "befriending" pages??

I think the reason the leadership of both parties have done nothing about this is because they're afraid of the blowback, not from a partisan standpoint, but from an overall disgust with Congress in general. Reps don't want anything out because they're currently in control; Dems don't want it all out because it would show they wouldn't do any better. IOW, hitting on pages is business as usual in Washington, regardless of party, gender or sexual orientation.

That's why I think Dems calling for an investigation are playing with fire. This really is going to turn into Pandora's Box, and once it's opened, no one's really sure what the results will be.

"Why would Fox intention... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Why would Fox intentionally show him as a D?"

How could they do it "accidentally" three times in a row - and not notice it? The mistake was repeated on-air three times.

It was on the O'Reilly Craptor. He must have gotten a really good laugh over this. Isn't it funny - aren't you laughing? Lying on nationwide television is great fun. Ho Ho Ho...

I got an idea: any member ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

I got an idea: any member of Congress or staff MUST fill out a disclosure statement, asking if:

1. You are Gay?
2. You like little kiddies?
3. You like bigger kiddies (16-18 year olds)?
4. Have you ever made it with a goat?

etc.

Then, we'll PURGE the RANKS! I would reckon a lot more Dems, especially on #4.

Hugh, you continue to ignor... (Below threshold)

Hugh, you continue to ignore that this is not the first post Jay has offered on this. You act as if this is the first and last word, even on this blog, about this issue. Is it that you are unsatisfied with how many times Jay has said that he doesn't care who it is - Republican or Democrat? Or is it that he hasn't used the wordage that would appease your sense of righteousness? Shall we all get out the cat-o-nine tails and begin flogging ourselves to your content? Give me a break. We all want the truth and if it means visiting all aspects of the issue or entertaining all possibilities through discussion without being called out on the carpet for anything less than what appeals to your sensibilities, then that's what it will be whether you like it or not.

I notice you do not deny the possibility that any Democrat "may" have held this back for an opportune moment - I only see that you are quick to castigate anyone who asks the question. As I said, you are so sure you know what is in Atwater's heart, yet, you can't seem to let your brain accept the possibility that this being three years in the coming could be a strategic political move. I'm not saying it is. But it wouldn't surprise me. I wouldn't put it past either side to engage in such machinations.

As you quickly agreed with Jay on a previous post (but with caveats) you have just as quickly returned to your usual sniping and accusations as soon as Jay began to ask questions or even entertained the idea that this could be more far reaching than originally anticipated.

Holier than thou indeed. I'll say no more on the mater.

Lee, don't pucker so hard. ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Lee, don't pucker so hard. It will make your penie fall off.

Oyster:Than god.</... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Oyster:

Than god.

Hugh

ooops...thank god... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

ooops...thank god

I too followed the trail to... (Below threshold)
Chasm:

I too followed the trail to the StopSexPredators website and found it suspicious. You pointed to the most interesting tidbit without acknowledging it:

Someone finds out about Foley's fondness for young men, and his tendency to express that towards Congressional pages. They start gathering up their evidence, but they want it to get out in a way that's not traceable back to them directly.

You immediately draw the concludion that some 'Democratic' opperative 'gathered up evidence,' even though we dont know the identity of blog owner. While I agree that the blog looks like it was set up specifically to out this scandal, there exists the possibility that the blog was set up by an actual page or parents of a page in order to do so without exposure.

Of course, if it was the Democrats, I say it was well and nicely played! But until we know who owns that site and who gave them the emails, we don't know jack.

Mithell,Misinformi... (Below threshold)
suhnami:

Mithell,

Misinforming millions of viewers is much ado about nothing? Everybody who watches Fox news knows who Foley is? That's a nice blanket statement. Before the scandal, he was also correctly labeled. If Fox issued a correction, like any good media source should, then that would offer me some comfort. If it's a conspiracy it was really stupid. If it was an innocent mistake, that's even worse, and terribly sloppy. Your 'Ah what the hell, everyone knows anyway' attitude exhibits complacany for glaringly flase reporting.

LoveAmerica,

Since I showed your 'Wishful Thinking' argument was actually true, you counter with an attack on Dems. Since I'm not a Democrat this distraction has no effect. This approach reminds me of 'we were attacked by Bin Laden, so let's go to Iraq'.

Hastert didn't appoint Free... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Hastert didn't appoint Freeh to investigate the page program because of objections from Democrats. Seems like the right thing to do. Why objections from Dem?


From Drudge
Does not appoint former FBI chief Louis Freeh to investigate the page program -- as widely reported --because of objections from Democrats... Developing...

So, here's what I'm underst... (Below threshold)
jim:

So, here's what I'm understanding as the argument:

a) the Democrats may have known about this since 2003.

b) the Democrats then withheld this information, and didn't even use it during the 2004 election.

c) the possibility that Democrats or others *may have* knew about this, and the *FACT* that Republicans
- knew about it
- had leadership positions over Foley, and kept him as leader of the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children
- didn't tell the Democrats in charge of the page program
- did nothing about Foley's continued unrestricted access to teenage boys,
- Reps like Reynolds, who knew directly of Foley's issues, went so far as convincing Foley to run again for Congress when Foley was thinking of dropping out

...means the Democrats, or whoever didn't release that info until now, could be equally guilty as the Republican Congressmen.

Does that realyl make sense to you?

Knowing about it, not being the victim, and waiting to release the info makes for *some* guilt.

Knowing about it, being in a position to do something about it because you're in the same party and you're the perp's BOSS, and then doing nothing about it, is a *TON* of guilt.

Get it? The first is not reporting a shady situation. The second is criminal negligence in aiding and abetting the continued behavior for personal power.

Straight-out: stop making excuses for this gang, by saying someone else is equally guilty. The current GOP has proven once and for all that they don't give a crap about me, you, children, or anything else but power. They are playing anyone who thinks the GOP is better than this for suckers.

Since I showed your 'Wishfu... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Since I showed your 'Wishful Thinking' argument was actually true, you counter with an attack on Dems. Since I'm not a Democrat this distraction has no effect.
--------------------------------------------------
That 's OK. At least you admit that the Dems are in the sewage wrt sexual abuse. If you honestly want to deal with the problems I have a proposal already. What do you do? play a trivial game of distraction with Fox news. Please look into the mirror.

Again, if you are honest, you will agree with me that we have to vote as many Dems out of office as possible if we care about sexual abuse in congress.

suhnami,I'm not su... (Below threshold)
Heralder:

suhnami,

I'm not sure if you understood what I meant. I meant wishful thinking on Fox's part that he was a democrat.

Either way, I shrug my shoulders at it, just as I did when CNN failed to cut off it's reporters mic's while they were in the bathroom talking over Bush's speech or the huge black X over Cheney's face.

I don't particularly have any reason to believe it was intentional unless they say it is.

JIm, We knew that t... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

JIm,
We knew that the Dems were dishonestly using the leaked NIE for political campaign. They also show a blatant disregard for leaking classified info. They have embraced and kept sexual predators in their midst. These are the reasons why they dems are in the sewage wrt sexual abuse and taking responsibilities.

Are you saying that all ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Are you saying that all the pages knew about Foley, but not one page went to a Dem representative or aide, and relayed this? If Foley's behavior was so pervasive, then surely it could not be kept only on the GOP side.

I don't know. But we have not seen anything to that effect. The question is why are you spending energy speculating about imaginary ways the Dems might have known, instead of focusing on the Reps who did know?

But we have not seen anythi... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

But we have not seen anything to that effect. The question is why are you spending energy speculating about imaginary ways the Dems might have known,
---------------------------------------------------
Because we know that the dems are dishonest and have zero regard for the security of the country. They have openly kept the sexual predators in their midst. Wetterling has just put together a dishonest campaign ad wrt Foley. We know that MSM are dishonest in their news report also. They have covered up for the Dems and have been caught red-handed.

In this context, it is perfectly reasonable to ask for a wide investigation of the whole congress and the page program. Recently the dems didn't volunteer jefferson 's bribery either. NO one asked for Pelosi to resign for example.

What are you guys afraid of? LEt 's have a full investigation of the Page program>

I see that the dem's lik... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I see that the dem's like Peloshi aren't too receptive to the idea that everyone give a statement 'under oath'.

You're kidding, right? May I remind you of...

Monday's hearing got off to a rocky start when Republicans and Democrats disagreed over whether Gonzales should be sworn in. Democrats said he should, but Specter said it wasn't necessary.

That's why I think Dems ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That's why I think Dems calling for an investigation are playing with fire. This really is going to turn into Pandora's Box, and once it's opened, no one's really sure what the results will be.

As an ordinary citizen, and not one of the politicians on the hot seat, I don't care. Something like this needs to be dealt with when it happens, and if any investigation finds Dems knew about the emails/IMs and sat on them, then so be it.

What we need is to abolish ... (Below threshold)
Chasm:

What we need is to abolish the page program. Privledged connected young brats of political donors get paid nothing, and in return they learn far more about how power really works in Washington than any of us will ever know.

Of course the parents of the pages didn't want to press it and of course even the pages themseleves dont want the scrutiny - they gain access and connections for life, and, at 17, already know how the game is really played.

What's more interesting abo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What's more interesting about Fox is not that they labeled Foley with a "D", which one could generously conclude was an accident. It's that when they later reran the clips that afternoon, rather than replacing the "D" with an "R", they just deleted the text overlay altogether.

As an ordinary citizen, and... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

As an ordinary citizen, and not one of the politicians on the hot seat, I don't care. Something like this needs to be dealt with when it happens, and if any investigation finds Dems knew about the emails/IMs and sat on them, then so be it.
---------------------------------------------------
I hope you are more honest than this. One key lesson here we all seem to agree on is for more pro-active actions to protect "the children". We know that the Dems have tolerated and kept the predators among their midst. We still have Barney Frank in Congress. Clinton is still around. His wife is in the Senate (she was his enabler). Ramuel who worked for Clinton is now in Congress too. Who knows what these people are covering up given what they have done before.

So what is the problem with a full investigation of the page program?

Here is a proposal for deal... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Here is a proposal for dealing with the real problem. Any feedback?

http://wizbangblog.com/2006/10/05/foley-the-plot-sickens.php#364014

LoveAmerica Immigrant, here... (Below threshold)
jim:

LoveAmerica Immigrant, here's my point:

a) currently there are only *theories* that the Democrats withheld info about Foley, while there are already *documented facts* that the Republicans both withheld info AND did nothing

b) therefore even if the worst possible speculations about the Dems are true, the Republicans involved are still *more* guilty. They KNEW and did NOTHING.

So there is simply no way that the Democrats are anywhere near as culpable as the Republicans for this situation.

Also, please show the infor... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, please show the information of documented "sexual predators" the Democrats have kept in their midst.

Bear in mind that consensual sexual relationships with adults does not count. So please don't equate Foley with Clinton and Lewinsky. It's not even the same ballpark.

(1) Investigate the page... (Below threshold)
jim:

(1) Investigate the page program and all people in congress.

OK. Sounds good. Starting with everyone who we know knew about Foley, first.

So far that's Hastert, Reynolds, Shimkus, and Fordham.

Lie detectors sound good.

Oh, and if any Democrat knew about Foley and did nothing, he shuold get the exact same treatment that Hastert and the rest get. Which is hopefully punishment and removal from office.

That's fair, right?

(2) Need to clean up congress. We have an election in a month....After we make sure the Dem sewage won't flood us all, then we can start the spanking of the Rep.

Soooo...the Republicans prove dramatically that they can't be trusted, and will go the extent of ***keeping pedophiles in positions of authority over children*** in order to maintain Foley's seat and a grip on power.

This means that we should give the Republicans MORE power, by voting out all the Democrats.

Because the current gang of Republicans have clearly shown that they can be trusted with power.

To go back to the earlier a... (Below threshold)
mRed:

To go back to the earlier accusation concerning the Willie Horton ad. I somewhat knew the fellow, Floyd Brown, that put the ad together. He worked with neither G. H. W. Bush nor Lee Atwater nor did he have their blessing. In fact, because Horton was black, many on Atwater's staff didn't like the ad because it might play into the hands of the race baiters at the NYTs and their subsidiaries, the rest of the media. This was/is a typical lie of the handler's of the liberal wing.

This means that we should g... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

This means that we should give the Republicans MORE power, by voting out all the Democrats.
---------------------------------------------------
Yup, because the Reps chased out their perverts. Livingston resigned because of his affair. The Dems lied, made excuse for Clinton, and attacked his victims. They kept perverts like Studd in their rank. Barney Frank is still with us now. Clinton pardoned Reynold.

The dems have just been caught red-handed lying wrt the leaked NIE.

So if you care about the country and women/children, you should not vote for the Dems. You want more cover up and embrace of predators? The Dems won't even kick their perverts out after they have been known.

Sorry, all, but though Fole... (Below threshold)
harris:

Sorry, all, but though Foley's actions were deplorable, the ex-pages always had the option of not answering the emails and especially instant messages. It's really quite simple to do. They were FORMER pages. Nothing to lose. If they had hopes for future favors from a congressman, well, then, their choice. It's a kind of prostitution on their part. But they were NOT victims then.
I am thoroughly disgusted with Republican reps and senators who are rushing to make themselves look good at the expense of the party.

OK. Woo.LoveAmeric... (Below threshold)
jim:

OK. Woo.

LoveAmerica immigrant, I don't know if facts will actually matter, but I do want to address this.

First: As I already pointed out, Clinton does not equate to this. I'll list why again: a) Lewinsky was an adult and their affair was consensual. Therefore Clinton was and is not a sexual predator. Period. b) no Democrats knew about it and covered it up, therefore no other Democrats are guilty of covering it up. Logical, right?

Second: Studds had sex with a page in 1973 - 33 years ago. If we're going to back that far, then let's be fair and also blame the current GOP for Richard Nixon's actions.

When this came out in 1983, 23 years ago, Studd was reprimanded by the entire house, 420-3, and was stripped of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee.

Most importantly: this is all the fault of the current Democrats, how?

Third: Barney Frank was found not guilty in a court of law. HIs partner was using his apartment in his absence.

Also, and more importantly, Barney Frank is also gay - NOT A PEDOPHILE. There's a difference, see. Gay is consensual, even if you don't like it. Pedophilia is a foul, vile crime against youth. Got it?

Fourth: Clinton pardoned someone. Maybe a bad choice. The rest of the Democrats are to blame for this, how?

Fifth: Most importantly, in all of the above cases, there is absolutely no evidence that Democrats knew beforehand of a risk to pages, and did nothing.

Just to be fair, here's a list of Republican sex criminals - and I'm not even including gay Republicans. That's not a crime, so that's none of my business.

Cunningham - remember him? Prostitutes for legislation?
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/28/prostitutes-six-members/

Here's a list of other GOP sex criminals.

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

Please go to those links, and then please rethink just how much you're willing to make excuses for the Republican party.

This is the fault of the pa... (Below threshold)
jim:

This is the fault of the pages? Harris, are you serious?

This is supposed to be the party of accountability and personal responsibility? The VICTIMS of unwanted attention are to blame, for being upset?

How would YOU react if you found a teacher was trying to have this kind of contact with your child? I guarantee you would flip the frak out - and rightfully so.

You also conveniently step around the fact that the pages brought Foley's issues up repeatedly, TO KEEP OTHER PAGES from being affected by Foley in the future - and the GOP did nothing about it. Which is the deeper issue here.

Also, LoveAmerica Immigrant... (Below threshold)
jim:

Also, LoveAmerica Immigrant, the GOP clearly did NOT chase out their perverts - they knew Foley had these sick issues, and yet Reynolds talked Foley into running AGAIN for Congress, when Foley was thinking about bowing out and not running.

Also, Foley resigned. And only when he was presented with evidence by the press. So this isn't evidence of GOP integrity either.

Also, LoveAmerica Immigrant... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Also, LoveAmerica Immigrant, the GOP clearly did NOT chase out their perverts - they knew Foley had these sick issues, and yet Reynolds talked Foley into running AGAIN for Congress, when Foley was thinking about bowing out and not running.
--------------------------------------------------
Foley is out now, right? Studds was kept in Congress until he retired after his sexual relationship with a 17 yr old was known. Barney frank is still in congress today right. Reynolds had sex rel with 16 yr old and was convicted with 6 years in jail. Clinton pardoned him. Clinton didn't have to resign after he was found lying wrt Lewinsky. The dems lied, made excuse, and attacked the Dem women who charged him with sexual harassment.

AT least we can be intellectually honest about this.

Boy, you Lefties are all at... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Boy, you Lefties are all atwitter about this.

You're starting to overdo things just a tad. This is not 9/11 or the Columbine Massacre, for God's sake.

This is why normal, non-Lefties are never persuaded by you guys. It's hyperventilating nonsense, mostly. Sure, the IM's were obscene, but that's all we're dealing with here. Jeez. Get a life.

The Fox News thing is a laugh. It didn't change to a D later, it just went away . . .Scandal!! The horror. I've seen him on O'Reilly and other shows for years with an "R" beside his name. Who would be fooled by this--did you guys go for it at first??

You're angry you got taken in by the Fox News Evil-Doers!!

When liberals start taking ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

When liberals start taking "personal responsibility" (that's the chief concern here, apparently, since we all acknowledge there was no sex, no physical aspect at all, just dirty Instant Messages), then they'll have some credibility on this issue, I suppose.

God, what an empty set of shifting "principles" you guys have, depending on the politics, of course.

Second: Studds had sex with... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

Second: Studds had sex with a page in 1973 - 33 years ago. If we're going to back that far, then let's be fair and also blame the current GOP for Richard Nixon's actions.

When this came out in 1983, 23 years ago, Studd was reprimanded by the entire house, 420-3, and was stripped of his chairmanship of the House Merchant Marine subcommittee.

Most importantly: this is all the fault of the current Democrats, how?

Third: Barney Frank was found not guilty in a court of law. HIs partner was using his apartment in his absence.

Also, and more importantly, Barney Frank is also gay - NOT A PEDOPHILE. There's a difference, see. Gay is consensual, even if you don't like it. Pedophilia is a foul, vile crime against youth. Got it?

Fourth: Clinton pardoned someone. Maybe a bad choice. The rest of the Democrats are to blame for this, how?

Fifth: Most importantly, in all of the above cases, there is absolutely no evidence that Democrats knew beforehand of a risk to pages, and did nothing.
-------------------------------------------------
Are you really honest here? Livingston resigned because of an extra marital affair and he won't come back to Congress soon. Why did the Dems keep Studds, Frank, and Clinton around? Clinton just pardoned Reynold and Marc Rich, another fugitive who was deeply involved in the oil-for-food scandal.

You can't with a straight face tell me that you care about the welfare of women/children and vote for the Dems at the same time.

BTW, the Dems have just bee... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

BTW, the Dems have just been caught lying about the leaked NIE. So you can't trust them.

Brian,I hope you'r... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

Brian,

I hope you're not, once again, deliberately confusing the innocuous e-mails (that the FBI declined to investigate further) with the salacious IM messages (that literally came out last Friday)?

I thought we were having a nice conversation about lying about this on another thread before you ran here?

Jim, pay attention:<p... (Below threshold)
Denny Crane!:

Jim, pay attention:

Clinton/Lewinsky is distinguishable from Foley in two ways: (1) They had sex, and (2) it was a heterosexual relationship.

The similarity is: (1) The explicit sexual talk occured between consenting adults.

RE: Love America Immigrant<... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Love America Immigrant

The Democrats were lying about the leacked NIE report? Is that a fact?

Where ?

Facts are the enemy of people like you, and the Right. The NIE report PROBED what the Democrats were claiming all along.... The war in Iraq is not only going terrible, it will continue to go terrible in the future, and is producing more terrorists than ever. Read the report!!

And by the way keep on the subject.

We are talking about a pervert Republican and the Republican "Cut and Run" from Accountability Leadership.

gilThe Democrats wer... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

gil
The Democrats were lying about the leacked NIE report? Is that a fact?
-----------------------------------------------
YEs it is. This is such a despicable lie by the Dems. The report actually said that if terrorists were defeated in Iraq, there would be less terrorist activities, the very opposite of the "cut-and-run" Iraq policy. If the dems want to advocate that policy then make the case. But to use the leaked NIE as a basis for that policy it dishonest. We are not even talking about the disregard the dems have illegal leaking of classified information. If the dems have such a disregard for matter of national security, why do you believe that they will protect the children/women? The facts show that the dems are quite willing to tolerate and keep the predators among their midst. Why did they kick Clinton, Frank, Studds out of the office? Even Hastert spoke up for the corrupted Jefferson (money in the fridge), the Dems simply seek to destroy Hastert.


We are talking about a pervert Republican and the Republican "Cut and Run" from Accountability Leadership.
-------------------------------------------------
Why did the dems keep Clinton, Frank, Studd in their rank after they have been known to be predators or enablers? You want more lying, covering up, and attacking the victims on behalf of these guys? IF you truly care about the women/children, how can you support the Dem party?

Ohhhhhh boy.Fun GO... (Below threshold)
jim:

Ohhhhhh boy.

Fun GOP Family Values Facts:
-> Livingston was forced out as the head of Congress, because he was pursuing Clinton for having sex out of marriage and then lying about it. And it was just too embarrassing for the GOP at the time.

-> Other prominent Republicans before and after Livingston who've had extramarital affairs, were discovered, and were not forced out of the GOP include:

Sen. John McCain (affair, divorce), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (affair, divorce, affair, divorce), and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (divorce, affair, nasty divorce).

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0607.benen.html

Bob Dole, Elizabth Dole: Bob cheated on his first wife with his current wife, Elizabeth Dole.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/rules021299.htm

Rep. Dan Burton- Had at least six adulterous affairs, and fathered a bastard son who, today, he ignores.

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/66851/index.php

Sen. Strom Thurmond: Cheated on his fourth wife at age 88. Also had a black love child who he didn't publicly acknowledge for roughly 50 years. Also had sex with his maid when she was 15.

http://liberalforum.org/mainblog/?p=53

Gov. Kirk Fordice: Got so hopped up by his mistress that he crashed his Jeep Cherokee and got himself hurt.

http://www.nationalist.org/docs/history/2004/fordice.html

Read some more here:
http://quinnell.us/politics/family.html

-> To sum up:

As shown by the successul political careers of the above, when the GOP tells you that they care about Family Values, they are telling you what you want to hear - and they are playing you for suckers.

RE: Mitchel.No Mit... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Mitchel.

No Mitchell we would like for Republican Right Wingers to ask for accountabilty from Rummy, Bush, Hatcher, and in general from the Republican Party in the Leadership of Government. Why?.... Simple, because your kind is running it!!!

But SINCE YOU REPUBLICANS ARE NOT, we just have to do it ourselves.

Or what the hell do you expect? You most be confusing us with Guatemala my friend.

It may be a surprise to you but the American people are much more than your little crowd of Right Wing partisans, or Liberal Moonbaths. There is a majority of us called the Center. We expect Acountability from our leaders, and I don't give a rat's ass if it has an R or a D in front of his name.

I expect you nuts in the Right to be decent enough and state the following:

The fact that Foley is a sexual predator is a given. We want to get to the bottom of this. We demand an immediate independent investigation to be finished before the elections. We demand that the Democrats hold their fire until then or loose the confidence of the people. We care about our kids much more than about our hold on power, and we will demonstrate that with FACTS.

Too much for you Right Wingers to handle?

Now wander you are going to loose the House and possibly the Senate. You deserve it.

If the Democrats turn a performace such as yours we will kik them out also... But stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that you can continue in power with the "record" you have.


I hope you're not, once ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I hope you're not, once again, deliberately confusing the innocuous e-mails ... with the salacious IM messages

No, I'm not. What I asked was if it was your son who received those emails from a 52-year old man that he had daily contact with, would you still dismiss them as "harmless and innocuous"?

Brian What would Y... (Below threshold)

Brian

What would YOU do if you found the emails?

I'd say you'd probably do what the parents of the email recepient did ... have someone tell the emailer never to contact your teen again, then get on with you life.

The emails are not legally actionable. Overly familiar and worthy of a couple of raised eyebrows, but what?

I think if gil is any examp... (Below threshold)

I think if gil is any example of Dems, they are unserious on issues and that's why they are going Mrs. Lovejoy on the Foley issue.

RE: Love America."... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Love America.

"The report actually said that if the terrorists were defeated in Iraq"

First of all Love America, the "terrorists" in Iraq are MULTIPLYING not beeing defeated. Every General that has served is indicating that our startegy is not working. In you quote you have a big "IF"... Like "IF" pig had wings.....

The reason that Democrats used the NIE report to make their point is because the NIE Report DOES make their point. If Bush (or you) want to have an honest discussion about Iraq, then is going to have to be with EQUAL access to intelligence, or do you think we live in Guatemala?

As for the cut and run .... Is not my fault that you and your fellow Right Wing nuts are "Cutting and Running" from the truth. What is it with you? Is the truth too hard to handle for your fragile brains?

If you want us to "Stay the course" what is the ao called course? We have been there four yeras now, and you Right Wingers are still in course? Can I ask to where in hell? Because the only course I see is our Army being overstreteched, and overtaxed, Iran getting Nuclear weapons while we stand powerless, and we are powerless because our military is in Iraq, and while there the Leader of Iraq is now a good friend of the Iranians..... This is the course you want? Are you mad? or simply "Cutting and Running" from the truth? Or are there any lies in my statements?

The Democrats are not the one with the problem with Foley my friend, and the NIE has nothing to do with the scandal.

I don't know about the way your brains work, but if all you have to offer is "Stay the Course' or you "Cut and Run" and the Democrats talked about the NIE now i understand why your party is not only going to loose in November, but it will also become a permanent ficture at Saturday Noght Live.

RE: Darleen.You pe... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Darleen.

You people do know that there is a Center in politics don't ypu?

I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I don't even vote some times.

I just use my brain Darleen. In the case of Foley it goes like this:

Congressman Foley a Republican Shoe-In win in Florida had for years exchanged "Overly-friendly" e-mails and XXX rated IM's with the like of your kids, or mine. This happened with the apparent knowledge of the Republican Leadership. From where do I come to that conclusion?

Lets see; Rodney Alexander Republican from Louisiana, John Boehner Republican from Ohio, Tom Raynolds Republican from New York just to name a few have come out publicly and fingered the Speacker of the House. They all have come out and declared that at one time or another they did report Foley's outrageous conduct to the Speaker of the House. Therefore either the Speaker of the House is lying, or the three Republican Congressman in charge of the Page program are lying.

As you can see, Republicans are the ones shooting themselves in the foot. Democrats are too incompetent to do better. They are simply looking at the Republicans self destruct.

You are going to loose the House now. After that we will have some exchange of real ideas about Iraq with equal access to intelligence and maibe we will stop cutting and running from the facts. That will be refreshing.

RE: The Fox D-FL caption... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

RE: The Fox D-FL caption

Wow, this is what's got your panties in a bunch?

You want a response...fine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niger_Innis

MSNBC incident
On Monday, February 4, 2002, MSNBC conducted an interview about the Enron scandal. During the broadcast, MSNBC put up a graphic identifying Niger Innis as "Nigger Innis." Although this racially offensive term was broadcast, MSNBC said its use was accidental.
According to the Associated Press, shortly after the graphic appeared, correspondent Gregg Jarrett offered Innis a "profuse apology." The AP also reports Innis replied: "Oh, God, I thought you guys thought I was a rapper or something. Media bias continues. Just kidding. It's not the first time it's happened, but hopefully it's the last."

Now, shut the f--- up already.


And also, to everyone who keeps repeating the "Foley is scum, etc..." mantra...OKAY, WE GET IT! The rest of us don't need to be convinced...You guys keep repeating it only because you think you are going to be misunderstood. You aren't. Lee and company will still continue to believe otherwise, but do you really give a damn about what they think? I don't.

1. You are Gay?2.... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

1. You are Gay?
2. You like little kiddies?
3. You like bigger kiddies (16-18 year olds)?
4. Have you ever made it with a goat?

5. Have you ever been in a Turkish Prison?
6. Do you like Gladiator movies?
7. The White Zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers. There is no stopping in the White Zone.
8. No, the Red Zone is for immediate...

Who is this gil character, ... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Who is this gil character, a fish?

I want to know what the fish knew about this scandal, and when did he know it.

Only when we have the facts about who knew about gay people being interested in others of the same sex will the fish be satisfied. Or, maybe he won't.

He's a fish, after all.

Meanwhile, back in the real world . . .life goes on.

What would YOU do if you... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What would YOU do if you found the emails? I'd say you'd probably do what the parents of the email recepient did ... have someone tell the emailer never to contact your teen again, then get on with you life.

Perhaps, but that wasn't the point. The other poster dismissed them as "harmless and innocuous". I asked if he would maintain that position if it were his kid. (Haven't seen an answer, BTW). But you've made my point for me, since one would not suggest telling the emailer never to contact your teen again if they were truly "harmless and innocuous".

Perhaps, but that wasn'... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Perhaps, but that wasn't the point. The other poster dismissed them as "harmless and innocuous". I asked if he would maintain that position if it were his kid. (Haven't seen an answer, BTW).

Have you read them?

I would have raised an eyebrow and demanded to know exactly what was going on in any circumstances. Apparently, the parents did so and discovered that there had been no attempt at sexual contact and no evidence that Foley's interest in their son was prurient in nature.

But they were still uncomfortable with it. And so they asked him to cut off all contact with their child.

    But you've made my point for me, since one would not suggest telling the emailer never to contact your teen again if they were truly "harmless and innocuous".

My reaction would have been the same. If I find out that any of my children has been hanging out with someone I do not personally know who also happens to be my age, I would be more than a little bit concerned.

But that doesn't mean I will accuse the man or woman of trying to seduce my child. Especially with only those e-mails as evidence.

Neither does that mean that I will demand for the police to rifle through his/her personal effects to check whether or not he/she is a paedophile. What next? Subject him to a penile plathismograph?

Do you have any idea what kind of damage that does to the child and to the person, who just might be innocent?

I will simply ask for it to stop.

Does this answer your question?

> Good point about the peop... (Below threshold)
Bill Biddle:

> Good point about the people who have been trying to hide these IMs
> until now in disregard for the welfare of these children.

The only people proven to have hidden these IMs are the Republican house leadership, Denny Hastert, and his aides.

Please produce some actual evidence that any other "people have been trying to hide these IMs until now".

Anything else is just idle speculation, story invention, fantasy. But don't let the facts hit your ass on the way out.

The only people proven ... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    The only people proven to have hidden these IMs are the Republican house leadership, Denny Hastert, and his aides.

No.

Denny Hastert and John Shimkus were aware of the e-mails which are very distinct from the IMs. The e-mails were not hidden. The FBI even looked at those e-mails and decided that there was nothing there.

The only thing that made them odd was that they were sent from a middle-aged man to a teenager. They contained nothing overtly sexual or prurient. If the e-mails had been from another 17 year old, no-one would have raised an eyebrow.

The salacious IMs on the other hand, came out on Friday last week. They date from 2003. Somebody had them for a long time and decided to do nothing for all that time to stop a reprobate from preying on young teenagers. The person decided instead to wait till the time was politically useful.

That's disgraceful. It's unfortunate the Left is applauding it.

Does this answer your qu... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Does this answer your question?

Yes. You acknowledged that you would not find the emails "harmless and innocuous", although you used quite lengthy and roundabout scenarios to say so, instead of just admitting it.

Do you have any idea what kind of damage that does to the child and to the person, who just might be innocent?

Again, that's exactly my point. Parents might tell police to "let it go" to protect the child, not because there's nothing worth investigating.

Neither does that mean that I will demand for the police to rifle through his/her personal effects to check whether or not he/she is a paedophile.

That wouldn't be your call. If there's evidence, or even a threat, of a sexual predator in the midst of a group, the unwillingness of a single victim to pursue it is no reason to stop investigating. Would you want police to stop looking into the actions of a teacher at your kid's school who was "creepy" toward another child, but their parents declined to pursue the matter?

If the e-mails had been ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If the e-mails had been from another 17 year old, no-one would have raised an eyebrow.

That's a silly statement. If two 17 year olds have sex, no one raises an eyebrow, either. That doesn't mean it's OK for a 52 year old man to do either.

BrianAre you invol... (Below threshold)

Brian

Are you involved law enforcement? Ever gone before a judge for a search warrant?

Re the emails... NO THERE THERE. Nothing, but nothing that would rise to the level that would provide probable cause.

The IM's yes, enough to launch an investigation. Email...NO.

Somebody had them for a ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Somebody had them for a long time and decided to do nothing for all that time to stop a reprobate from preying on young teenagers. The person decided instead to wait till the time was politically useful.

Read the news more. The IMs were provided by the interns, but only after the emails were reported in the media. The only ones who sat on the IMs were the interns themselves. But please, feel free to blame the victims.

Nothing, but nothing tha... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Nothing, but nothing that would rise to the level that would provide probable cause.

You don't need probable cause to quietly ask a few other interns if they noticed anything strange about Foley. You get probable cause by investigating. You don't wait for it to fall into your lap.

RE: Mitchel." Who ... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Mitchel.

" Who is this Gil character a fish?"
"I want to know what the fish knew and when did they know it'?

Hey Mitch, Are you OK?

What on earth are you talking about?

What fish? Who mentioned fish?

Are you another one of those that "drinks at home while sending IM's over the net?

I could care less who did what, when Michel. Fishes aside, Foley did it, and the Republican Leadership covered up...... Or try to answer why the Republican leaders that I already named fingered the Speker of the House .....

You want to debate, or you want to go fishing?

RE: Darleen, and Martin.</p... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Darleen, and Martin.

So the e-mails are as Darleen puts it "There is no there there" or Mitchel "The FBI found nothing there".

You two birds are missrepresenting the issue. Please explain to me why AGAIN PAY ATTENTION AND ANSWER DIRECTLY TO MY F----QUESTION Because I keep on asking it, and Republicans on this blog just act like they can't read.

1. Congressman Rodney Alexander Republican for Louisiana
2. Congressman John Bohener Republican for Ohio
3. Congressman Tom Reynor Republican for New York

All involved directly in the scandal because all had something to do with the Page program have, declared in all the Networks that they informed the Speaker of the House about the problem and what did he do? ..... Not a thing that is a fact. Some one (Reyno and possibly Hatcher) talked to Foley at different times and ask him to stop. After he turmed up drunk at the Pages dorm he was "asked to stop", after he was asked to stop by Congressman Reynor a $100,000 campain "contribution" was transfered to Reynor's bank account. All these "little" Red Flags of course point to "no there there" .... I mean how on earth can any one get to any other conclusion!!!

If there is no "there there" Darleen I am going to ask you to send me YOUR PICTURE preferibly in a Bikini..... After that maibe we can talk about your friends physical attributes "No there there Darleen"? or are we getting a bit personal here? Do I sound like a jerk Darleen? Yes I do Darleen, and you know it. Or, Maibe Darleen, you are really a closet Liberal and don't mind it. But me and millions of Americans would find a "there there" if a 54 old man starts asking for the picture of my Daughter or Son in the context of talking about the physical attributes of their friends.

No there there Martin because the FBI sat on the evidence? What do you think the evidence was doing at the FBI in the first place?, why do you think parents from the kids in question contacted their Congressman Rodney Alexander?, why do you think Tom Reynor claims that he talked to Foley and ask him to stop?, and from where in hell do you get that the FBI was not going to investigate? Please point to me to where is it that you can find an FBI statement dismising the issue as "not there there".

Yes. You acknowledge... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

    Yes. You acknowledged that you would not find the emails "harmless and innocuous", although you used quite lengthy and roundabout scenarios to say so, instead of just admitting it.

No. I would still find them innocuous. But I would be a bit disturbed simply because I would not be comfortable with my 17 year old child having a 40+ year old friend that I do not personally know. I will not automatically assume that the 40+ year old is a paedophile and demand an investigation into every nook and cranny of his life.

    That wouldn't be your call. If there's evidence, or even a threat, of a sexual predator in the midst of a group, the unwillingness of a single victim to pursue it is no reason to stop investigating. Would you want police to stop looking into the actions of a teacher at your kid's school who was "creepy" toward another child, but their parents declined to pursue the matter?

Try to keep up. The FBI were given these e-mails in July and they found nothing in them to make them want to investigate further.

Sorry if your amazing powers of hindsight makes you disagree, but, like Hastert, I would not demand for the police to rifle through someone's personal effects on account of e-mails like these, especially if all I had were those innocuous (according to the FBI as well) e-mails and after I asked him to cease all contact and he promptly did.

    Read the news more. The IMs were provided by the interns, but only after the emails were reported in the media.

Don't lie. Foley resigned last Friday after being confronted with the IMs from 2003 by ABC reporters. Two Florida newspapers had those e-mails since last year, and like Hastert and the FBI thought they were nothing and not worthy of a write-up. There was no story prior to that in the Press featuring the e-mails alone.

    You don't need probable cause to quietly ask a few other interns if they noticed anything strange about Foley.

Another amazing demonstration of your powers of hindsight.

The following is the text o... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

The following is the text of the former page's family's statement:

We wish to remain anonymous in an effort to prevent any further harm to our family.

There has been much media inquiry regarding our son and his time as a house page. Although our son bravely came forward with information regarding Congressman Foley, his experience as a House page was not marred by the kind of wrongdoing that appears to have occurred with respect to other House pages and Congressman Foley.

In fact, we are pleased that he had the opportunity to serve as a page in the U.S. House of Representatives and if given the opportunity, he would serve as a page again.

We would like to express our support for our congressman, Rodney Alexander, whose office sponsored our son's position as a House page. As far as we know, Congressman Alexander's conduct in this matter has been beyond reproach. He has tried his best to do what we have asked him to do from the very beginning: Namely, to protect the privacy of our son and family from the intense media scrutiny we are now having to endure.

In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

Rather, we asked him to see that Congressman Foley stop e-mailing or contacting our son and to otherwise drop the matter in order to avoid a media frenzy. He did so. If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently. For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days.

These instant messages, which have only recently surfaced as a result of the news of the ambiguous e-mails received by our son, are separate matters.

As a young man with integrity who had the courage to question the intention of the e-mails, we respect and honor our son as a hero. Despite his courageous actions, he is becoming a victim due to the harassment by some of the media. Please honor our request that we be left alone. There is nothing more that we can contribute to this ongoing matter. He is not the story, and we feel this intense media scrutiny could endanger our son and family.

We have no intention of discussing this further. Thank you.

Well, gil, it's obvious you're correct, Rodney Alexander personally helped Foley brutally rape that young man! And the sick parents are covering up for him!

Please point to me to w... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:
    Please point to me to where is it that you can find an FBI statement dismising the issue as "not there there".

I quote:

An FBI official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the field office concluded that the e-mails "did not rise to the level of criminal activity." The bureau announced Sunday that it would begin a preliminary investigation into Foley's more explicit electronic exchanges with teenagers.
    No there there Martin because the FBI sat on the evidence?

And now the FBI covers up for pederasts? Maybe in your world, everybody, including of course every single Republican, even the guy sitting in Barrow, Alaska knew what Foley was up to and was covering up for him. Heck, you probably think I bought Foley his computer!

I would still find them ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I would still find them innocuous. But I would be a bit disturbed simply because I would not be comfortable

You're contradicting yourself. "Innocuous" things don't make people "disturbed and uncomfortable". Just admit you over-stated your position, and move on.

I will not automatically assume that the 40+ year old is a paedophile and demand an investigation into every nook and cranny of his life.

I would not demand for the police to rifle through someone's personal effects

That's a common theme with conservatives. "All or none". You either do nothing, or "demand an investigation into every nook and cranny of his life". You either do nothing, or you "rifle through personal effects". You either sit there quietly for 7 minutes, or you run screaming from the room and scare all the children. I've seen this reasoning over and over. You have no middle ground.

I've said this before, many times... you have someone quietly ask other pages and/or staffers if there's anything going on with Foley that you need to be concerned about. Not only is that the right thing to do to make sure the children are protected, but it's also the very best "cover your ass" move that Hastert could have made.

The FBI were given these e-mails in July and they found nothing in them to make them want to investigate further.

And whoever made that decision has pretty lousy judgment, wouldn't you say?

>>The IMs were provided by the interns, but only after the emails were reported in the media.

Don't lie. Foley resigned last Friday after being confronted with the IMs from 2003 by ABC reporters.

I wasn't lying, and neither did you. The first ABC News story didn't even mention the IMs. It was all about the emails. It was Thursday. And then on Friday the IMs came to light: "Hours earlier, ABC News had read excerpts of instant messages provided by former male pages...." And Foley resigned. Please do some basic research before accusing me of lying.

Another amazing demonstration of your powers of hindsight.

Not hindsight. Good judgment. Someone comes to me and says one of my guys has been "over friendly" with a teenager, and it's risen to the level that one of my lieutenants felt he needed to bring it to my attention and discuss the issue with the boy's family, I'm going to ask what else has he done that we don't know about.

But I guess I'm not going to convince you. If you saw a train barreling down on someone, and you didn't yell out to warn them, and later someone asked you why not, you'd just dismiss their "amazing powers of hindsight".

Yep, as JT said eariler thi... (Below threshold)
Dick Burns:

Yep, as JT said eariler this week, the Foley scandel is a sure sign things are getting BETTER in Washington. Anybody can attempt to SPIN CRAP into GOLD. I just call it Lieing.

In reading these posts, I r... (Below threshold)
Dick Burns:

In reading these posts, I realize that I am not the only one to realize that Jay Tea is a complete joke. The truth to him is whatever he wants it to be, then he tries to forcefeed it to everybody else. Surprise surprise, he always spins the story in favor of the Republicans and always spins against the Democrats. What a joke. The truth is whereever it lies. The truth is simply not a member of the Republican Party OR the Democratic Party. Jay is a JOKE!

Surprise surprise, he al... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Surprise surprise, he always spins the story in favor of the Republicans and always spins against the Democrats.

Oh, no, you've got him so wrong! He's a libertarian and independent. So you can see, there are many anti-Republican posts from him, too. Somewhere. If you keep looking. Maybe. (Not.)


By the way, <a href="http:/... (Below threshold)
Brian:

By the way, here's a conservative publication that also finds the "gee, what else could I have done?" defense to be ludicrous:

It is enough for me that GOP leaders knew that a parent and child had lodged a complaint. They should at a minimum have questioned other pages to find out if other boys may have been involved.

Exactly what I have been saying.

RE: Martim A. Knight.... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: Martim A. Knight.

We agree Martin. The FBI IS CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION CORRECT?

A)To trow back your own words at you. The Investigation is ONGOING.

B)QUote from you: "The investigation concluded that the e-mails do not rise to the level of crimial activity".

Point B. First. Neither I nor any Democrat claims that the E-Mails are criminal. I and millions argue that they raised a RED FLAG With GAY PREDATOR all over it but not much was done about it. That is what the FBI investigation is supposed to uncover. Please stop trying to confuse the issue.

I asked you if you could point to me where did you find the case dismissed by the FBI because as you put it there was" no there there"? I did not ask you to give me the "opinion" of an "unnamed" field official stating that the case was not criminal in his opinion. I will answer my own question since you are avoiding it...

Question. Since you are stating that the FBI found that there was "no there there" please tell us where can you find the case's Dismissal?........

Answer. NOWHERE.The case was never closed. The case is active. And now is urgent because is out in the light. Just because the case was not taken immediately by the FBI and acted upon (You should not be surprised when it comes to a Congressman) that in no way shape or form translates that the case was dismissed because they found not there there as you imply by your remark.

Simple is in it?

POINT A. Indeed the parents of the first page contacted Congressman Rodney Alexander. The context of the letter is simple if you open your mind. They are politely asking the Congressman to do something about a gay man sending e-mails to their son. Why ? Because they consider them inapropiate. But in your opinion since "there is no there there" I guess the parents were just pissing in the wind, and beeing paranoiac. Again you are making my point. The parents, the page, the Congressman from Louisiana were ovbiously finding a "there there" don't you think? Or you still don't see it? Furthermore,
What the letter does not say is that the Congressman had a HISTORY of this "little" indiscretions, and that the history was known by the Republican Leaders for years. Still no red flags right?

Fine, I am not going to argue any more about this. Have it your way. The Republican Right gets all worked up because there is a tit flash at an NFL game, but all the above is not a problem. Republicans bring back Congress, take Bush out of a vacation, and make a circus over a pasient right to die (With Court authorization)in peace, and with some dignity but here you and your felow Republicans can't see a problem with his e-mails.... Fine.

Just grant me this. You should not be surprised if people call you or your Republican friends hypocrits. No offense but you do the same with Democrats that defend BJ's at the oval office don't you? Remember whenyou laughed at the "A BJ is not sex" ? .... You sound the same now.

A Hypocrit does not have a party he just has a double standard.

I see Lee and company final... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

I see Lee and company finally shut up about the Fox caption now that I brought out the MSNBC snafu. About f'in time.

Martin, you can keep pulling up quotes to answer the charges, but the nutroots gang are simply going to change the subjet, or move the goalposts. Only mantis usually argues constructively. And I see even he/she isn't bothering to wallow in this thread.

Dick Burns: get a penicillin shot already.

By the way, when this was John Tower or Bob Packwood, etc, Sexual Harassment was the national scourge in the hallowed halls of government. Yet, Clinton got a pass from the same groups (NOW, I'm looking at you) who attacked the above gentlemen. Now all of a sudden, the Dems have their knickers in a twist again. What, did sexual harassment not exist between the years of 1994 and 2006? Curious minds want to know.

If Hastert is supposed to play mind-reader vis-a-vis the IMs and investigate the IMs before anyone knew of their existence, then why isn't Pelosi calling for investigation of some of her Party's little indescrecions...like say blocks of money in a freezer somewhere in New Orleans (William Jefferson, I'm looking at you.) In fact, you Leftists should be f---ing grateful to Dennis Hassert, because he help cover Jefferson's arse when the FBI came a knocking.

Be careful what you wish for Leftists.

Frankly, I'm already tired of the Foley nonsense, and it's not going to affect most voters...most Republicans/Conservatives never heard of the guy until this week, and he's not in their state...that is, if they even have been following the story. Because most voters are not news-junkies.

So, we can all sit back and wait for the next scandal-du-semaine, which will probably be something a Democrat has done...and so on, and on.

RE: James.Sounds g... (Below threshold)
gil:

RE: James.

Sounds good to me.

Democrats are hypocrits
Republicans are hypocrits

But keep it fair and balanced if you please.

Hastert is no mind reader, but then again you don't need to read minds to figure this one out. My dog could do it.

If I ask you for your picture.... While talking about how athletic your friend looks, I am shure you will have a very, very hard time figuring out that I am hitting on you right? ....

So say again, how old are you? and can you send me your picture? Just "no there there" and B-J's at the Oval Office is not really sex...... Republicans or Democrats they all sound the same to me. I guess is the sound of hypocricy.

You think there may be any decent politicians left?

Once we were lead by gigants. Washington, Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Lincoln, and many more. Republicans and Democrats all. Man that made mistakes, man that were all too human. But above all man that took responsibility for their actions.

Today it seems to me that no politician is accountable any more. We voters just give them a pass. and they take advantage of our ignorance, to continue with their ways. The base will always defend me is their idea... And they are right.

I hope that Republicans learn to be tough with their leaders because you elected them, and I hope Democrats do the same. Today voters do the opposite and that is wrong.

That is what infuriates me the most. The partisans that defend the indefensible because they feel that they will give a "win" to the other side. That is a sick, sick way of living indeed.

"I see Lee and company f... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I see Lee and company finally shut up about the Fox caption now that I brought out the MSNBC snafu. About f'in time.

According to the info you provided AP apologized for their mistake. Did Fox -- no - because it wasn't a mistake - it happened three times in a row on O'Reilly's show. One time - maybe a mistake - not the second or third time. Those, at a minimum, were intentional.

It was Fox News being intentionally dishonest with the American people. Nothing new, I admit.

gil ...Let's try t... (Below threshold)
Martin A. Knight:

gil ...

Let's try this again.

The e-mails were provided to the FBI in July. The FBI concluded that "they did not rise to the level of criminal activity" and declined to further investigate. That means that there was no case to begin with. There was no case file open and therefore there was no on-going investigation.

This is something someone with a moderate level of intelligence and some education simply from watching TV should be able to pick up. But I guess I do need to spell it out for you.

When a police agency is alerted to a possible crime, they first of all look into it to determine if a crime has been committed. If they determine that a crime has been (or may have been) committed, they open a case file and continue to investigate. If not, they simply file the report and do nothing further; there's no case to investigate.

The FBI is opening a new case now that the IMs have come to light. The e-mails are now part of this new case where they by themselves did not warrant one.

That's how it works, gil. So, when the FBI guy says that "... it did not rise to the level of criminal activity" it means that there was no case. Believe it or not, a person can ask for another person's picture in a way that is discomfitting without actually wanting to have sex with him/her. Even gay men. Did Foley ask the boy to send him a picture of himself naked, or in some other sexual pose? Did he ask him any sexual questions or proposition him?

Let's go back to the parent's letter and highlight a part that you seem to have skimmed.

[Congressman Alexander (R-LA)] explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did WE think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

In other words, neither the FBI nor the parents of the page thought those e-mails were enough to start an investigation or start asking questions that could very well destroy an innocent man who may have simply made an innocent, if somewhat inappropriate request.

    I did not ask you to give me the "opinion" of an "unnamed" field official stating that the case was not criminal in his opinion. I will answer my own question since you are avoiding it...

I've already explained to you that there was no "case". I wonder, do you so easily dismiss the New York Times when they cite anonymous sources who leak opportunistically selected bits of National Security documents?

Hypocrisy seems to be a vice that you're well acquainted with yourself.

Next time, Martin, save the... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Next time, Martin, save the electrons and bandwidth, and just say this:

"The e-mails were provided to the FBI in July. The FBI concluded that "they did not rise to the level of criminal activity" and declined to further investigate. That means that there was no case to begin with."

No, it means they declined to investigate.

I'd like to know why, and hear it from their mouths, not your imagination.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy