Just a few semi-random thoughts on the Representative Foley/congressional page scandal:
1) There needs to be a full criminal investigation into Foley’s conduct. If he violated any laws, then he needs to spend some serious time behind bars. If he skirted right up to the edge of them but never quite went across them, then he deserves to spend the rest of his life under intense scrutiny to make sure he never gets that close again without being observed.
2) His latest batch of excuses are, in brief, a crock of bullshit. Alcohol doesn’t create anything, it only intensifies feelings already present. In Mel Gibson’s case, I suspect it was general rage that was evoked, and chose anti-Semitism as its form to express. In Foley’s case, the booze did not turn him into a pedophile. If that was the case, there would be laws against places serving or selling liquor within a mile or so of schools.
As far as the “abused by a member of the clergy” story, I call bullshit on that one, too. If that was the case, then Massachusetts — the “ground zero” for the Pedophile Priest scandal that rocked the Catholic Church — would be filled with deviants, pedophiles, and other miscreants, and… um… I might have to reconsider that one.
(I see that Foley was born in Newton, Massachusetts. Dang, I’m really going to have to rethink this.)
OK, obligatory Massachusetts-bashing aside, I am STILL not buying that one. If you have a deep, dark secret that drives you to shameful acts, the only way you’re going to get ANY credit and credibility with me is if you confess them BEFORE you’re caught. Otherwise, it looks like you’re just trying to cover your ass — and most likely are.
3) I don’t give a rat’s ass about the inner politics of Congress in general. I don’t care who holds what position in which house, for the most part. If Hastert has to resign as speaker, the most reaction I’ll have is “oh, whatever.” If he doesn’t, I won’t care, either. I don’t belong to either party, not about to sign up for either, and find most of their partisan squabbling and internecine struggles entertaining at best, but far more often simply dull.
4) IF all the Republican leadership had to go on was some rather odd e-mails, then they really had nothing they could do. Those who say that Foley’s e-mails were grounds for further investigation are engaging in exactly the kind of gay-bashing they denounce when the issue is gay Scout leaders, gay teachers, gay coaches, any time gay people might be put in a position of overseeing younger people. The ACLU, with the backing of a LOT of the left, fought that position all the way to the Supreme Court.
5) If the Republican leadership had access to not just Foley’s E-mails, but his Instant Message conversations with pages, THEN they ought to not just resign their leadership position, but their office as well. As the old saying goes, it’s not the crime that gets you, it’s the coverup, and there was absolutely NO way this was going to say quiet until 2008 (the next time someone could run to replace Foley). For all my contempt for most politicians, I respect the basic political savvy it takes to get elected to national office and rise to a position of leadership, and I find it difficult that they could make sugh a grotesque error in judgment.
Then again, Gerry Studds was reprimanded by the House for flying a page to Portugal where he could boink the boy without breaking US laws. Studds turned his back on the House while the reprimand was read and was STILL not only re-elected another 5 times, but kept his seniority and privileges, even heading up (um… poor word choice there) a major committee — appointed to that post by the Democratic leadership.
So, anyway, as I was saying, I doubt that the Republican leadership knew the full details of Foley’s Folly — but if they did, they gotta go, too.
6) There appears to be evidence that the exposure of Foley was not some fortunate discovery, but a carefully-planned “hit” that was prepared and saved up for just before the election. That in no way mitigates anything I say above, but merely adds to the list of people who need some serious investigation. If — IF — there were people who knew about Foley, and had the goods on him, but sat on that information until the opportune political moment to release it as a sort-of “October Surprise,” then they need to be charged with accessory before and after the fact in any criminal charges filed against Foley. If that isn’t feasible or legal, then they at least need to be unmasked as the sort of scum who have no problems concealing a predatory pedophile until it suits their agenda to expose him — putting who knows how many more teenagers at risk for their own benefit.
So, to sum up:
Foley: Rot in hell, you sick bastard. I don’t care if you actually broke the letter of the law or not.
Hastert and the rest of the House leadership: Shame on you for not keeping a closer eye on him. But if you had access to the Instant Messages, then to hell with you, too.
The “get Hastert” people: Unless you have solid evidence that they knew about the Instant Messages, shut your pieholes, you partisan hacks.
The people who exposed Foley: You have our thanks. But if you sat on that information for one minute longer than necessary, just to further your own political ends, then you’re almost as guilty as Foley, and ought to rot in hell, too.
Haralder and Lee:
Did you read my entire comment? Did my point escape you? Why pull one line out of context?
My point was: (1) It ain’t pedophilia, and (2) Jay’s sentencing him to “rot in hell, you sick bastard” seemed absurdly harsh.
Yes, Foley’s actions were creepy and disgusting, and I would not want him having contact with my son, if I had one. On the other hand, I seriously doubt he damaged these kids by his emails and text messages, and it certainly IS NOT pedophilia.
Brian,
Stop leaving stuff out. From the same article you cited:
Apparently, the FBI looked into it and decided that there was nothing there. According to an article you’ve cited, no less. WTF?!
Honestly? Like Monday morning quarterbacking.
“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.”
Putting a tigerskin lampshade on your head and dancing an irish jig on the rooftop may not rise to the level of criminal activity either, but it would raise enough concern to investigate further.
So did the emails…
Hastert failed to execute his responsibilities. He should resign.
Martin,
let ‘s apply the Dems logic to this case: the right thing has been done wrt Foley in this case (he is out of congress and under criminal investigation). Compare this to the Dems: keeping Studd and attacking critics as anti-gay; lying, excusing, attacking victims on behalf of Clinton who pardoned a convicted dem Reynold.
Now the dems said that this is not enough (which is way beyond what they have done). So they want to know who covered it up etc… The facts show that someone had these IMs as far back as 2003. Given the Dems ‘s record so far, the first thing to do is to investigate what the Dems know and when. Since they have been just caught red-handed lying about the leaked NIE for their political campaign, it is natural to suspect their involvement in this cover-up of these IMs. The dems have been willing to compromise national security for political gain. This one just shows that they are probably willing to disregard the safety of children also for political gain.
Since the liberals are really interested in punishing other people in congress besides Foley, I suggested that we try to vote out as many Dems as possible first. Then after that we can look into replacing some in the Rep leadership. The reason is that we can conclude that the Dem party has zero regard for national security as well as the welfare of women and children.
Denny Crane!,
Perhaps I should have taken a broader approach.
I didn’t say anything about the semantical clarification of pedophelia, because there’s not actually much for me to argue there…it’s in black in white on your post.
You also made it clear that you didn’t approve of his actions and that your intent was to address Jay’s comment.
It may seem like cherry-picking your post to pull out one sentence, but it makes about as much sense in context as it does out of context. You expounded in your follow up post and now I understand your meaning: that a 16 or 17 year old can mentally handle some suggestive emails.
Sure they can, but that’s neither here nor there. We both agree that they shouldn’t have to handle them. It’s entirely peripheral to the argument as to whether the kid was scarred as a result of the exchange.
It didn’t fit with the rest of your point, so I took exception to it…I think we’re on the same page now.
Foley lost the election for us, I don’t see any way we pull this one off. Maybe we hold on to the Senate but the House is lost.
Hey Zeb,
Let ‘s wait and see. The dems have run this play so many times. The dishonesty of MSM and the dems are clear to all except probably the people on the left. Just like with the Wellstone memorial, the Dems are overplaying their hands politically with their dishonest campaign ads. Their color is showing now. A lot of people are angry at the way the Dems are selling out the country.
In response to what Hastert knew, Brian Ross on O’Reilly just admitted no one but a few pages had the IM’s until a few weeks ago.
Should be on O’Reilly’s repeat tonight. Roughly 10-20 minute into the show.
ON drudge, looks like they outed the guy that Foley was IMing 3 years ago and he WAS 18!!! So lets see how this plays out now…
I am sure there is alot we don’t know–potentially pro and con.
The 18 year old issue is troubling.
But, now we’re hearing on FoxNews that Hastert’s chief of staff knew about an intoxicated Foley showing up at the pages’ dorm. If true, Hastert may have to step down.
The whole thing is a lose-lose for Hastert. If he moved aggessively on Foley, he may have had to expose the kids’ identities and go after a gay member of Congress. If we were talking about a guy who had been physically aggressive or had been trying something with much younger kids, it would have been a clearer issue as well.
I think you’d have to come down hard on Foley if he did this; but, you’d also have some other things to consider. Not an enviable position.
Damn this Foley character for putting a bunch of people, kids’ families included, in a bad spot.
Oh this is nice, on the part of the Dems:
“The Great Outing–David Corn has a copy of a “List” of purportedly gay GOP top congressional staff on the Hill, but won’t publish it. “The implication is that these gay Republicans somehow helped page-pursuing Mark Foley before his ugly (and possibly illegal) conduct was exposed. The List–drawn up by gay politicos–is a partial accounting of who on Capitol Hill might be in that network.”
You know, the Dems always find a way to overplay their hand. Now it’s sordid.
>>”An FBI official…said the field office concluded that the e-mails “did not rise to the level of criminal activity.”
Apparently, the FBI looked into it and decided that there was nothing there. According to an article you’ve cited, no less. WTF?!
No one has said that the emails on their own were criminal. But they should have been enough for the FBI to at least look into it a little. But whether the FBI should have investigated is a different argument. The post I was responding to said they had, and the link I posted shows they haven’t.
>>How does that sound?
Honestly? Like Monday morning quarterbacking.
Hey, the guy specifically asked “What precisely more should have been done?” So I answered.
By the way, I was cutting Hastert some slack here. The answer I gave was the “I’m a politician who wants to keep this quiet, protect my party, and keep me out of trouble” suggestion of what should have been done. I didn’t even start in with the “I’m a moral human being who is horrified by the possibilities this raises” suggestion of what should have been done.
In Foley’s case, the booze did not turn him into a pedophile. If that was the case, there would be laws against places serving or selling liquor within a mile or so of schools. — blog post
Just want to point out the fallacy of this statement.
The logic here is, bureaucrats necessarily have it all right. It takes the following form:
(1) If it’s a crime, it is punished.
(2) Booze as a precursor to pedophilia is not punished
Therefore, booze is not a precursor to pedophilia.
This is not sound reasoning.
I don’t think alcohol has anything to do with pedophilia either, but try to use better logic.
Upon inspection, yours seems to have a supreme respect for government. Not cool.
See, Brian …
No one has said that the emails on their own were criminal. But they should have been enough for the FBI to at least look into it a little.
This is a very odd position for someone who believes that the United States is one step away from fascism because the government listens in on phone conversations between numbers in the United States and numbers found on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s palm pilot.
Once again, note; the only thing the FBI had were those e-mails. They did not rise to the level of being criminal and were quite frankly innocuous. And yet, here you are, because you are suddenly an expert, questioning why they didn’t investigate further?
Would you like it if the FBI started to investigate you – y’know, “look into it a little” – for everything you ever wrote that raised eyebrows, no matter how innocuous? Do you think they have that much time and resources?
Hey, the guy specifically asked “What precisely more should have been done?” So I answered.
Yes. With Monday morning quarterbacking, opportunistic self-righteousness and a smugness only born of hindsight.
Hugh: “And, by the way, I was speaking about both the left and the right.” Funny, you only added that qualifier after the fact. Going by past comments, I’m having difficulty determining now whether or not you’re denigrating the left or the right. Since, you know, reading your mind seems to be a requirement for understanding your commentary.
And Lee:
“… and it’s somehow ok to subject these children to the advances of Congressman?”
I think Lee should resign – from blog commenting. His posts are normally only ad hominem attacks and largely ill thought out. Often, he creates his own argument and then rebuts, as noted in the above quote. Hint: No one said that, Lee. No one even implied that, Lee. You are hereby disqualified from having any further opinion, Lee.