Catchy headline, eh? The point of it is that the netnuts are either implying as much in their criticisms or are actually saying so.
Taylor Marsh: “MARK FOLEY: Just Another Republican Pervert”
John Aravosis: “GOP House page board chair may have helped cover-up Foley scandal.”
Oliver Willis: “Republican Pedophile Scandal: They Knew”
The Democratic Daily: “Got Values? Republican House Leadership Cover Up for Suspected Pervert in Congress”
Facts you say? You want facts? Why in God’s name do you want to ruin a perfectly good scandal 40 days before the election by muddying the waters with a bunch of facts?
Well, maybe we can start with the statement issued by the Chairman of the House Page Board, Representative Shimkus:
“As chairman of the bipartisan House Page Board in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter.“In that email exchange, Congressman Foley asked about the former Page’s well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph. When asked about the email exchange, Congressman Foley said he expressed concern about the Page’s well-being and wanted a photo to see that the former Page was alright.< [> “Congressman Foley told the Clerk and me that he was simply acting as a mentor to this former House Page and that nothing inappropriate had occurred. Nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact with this former House Page to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We also advised him to be especially mindful of his conduct with respect to current and former House Pages, and he assured us he would do so. I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional emails.
“It has become clear to me today, based on information I only now have learned, that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct.
“As Chairman of the House Page Board, I am working with the Clerk to fully review this incident and determine what actions need to be taken.
The “jumping to conclusions” crowd has ignored this statement and the facts contained therein to accuse the Republican House leadership of covering up the actions of a known pervert. While by any stretch the contact with the page was inappropriate, it hardly rises to the level of “perversion” as it was reported to the Page Board last year and trying to make it seem so is the dirtiest kind of politics.
It disturbs me that the parents of the page did not want to pursue the matter at that time. There are many reasons for that but one that leaps out and begs to be investigated further is if there was pressure put on the parents by Republican members of Congress to drop the matter. Another perfectly logical explanation is that the emails were, in fact, innocent sounding attempts to inquire as to the youth’s well being and the parents were satisfied with the Congressman’s explanation.
But why let common sense or common decency for that matter spoil a good smear campaign? The muddy hoofprints left by Democrats over the last few years as they have dirtied the reputations of several Republicans who have later turned out to be innocent (Karl Rove in Plamegate for one) reveals a party so totally bereft of ideas that their only hope to take advantage of the monumentally stupid and disastrous Republican leadership is to pray for more Americans to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, hope that gas prices go higher, and wish for an economic downturn. Even with Republicans as weak and vulnerable as they have been in a generation or more, the Democrats still could lose thanks to a party so intellectually bankrupt and morally ambivalent that they can’t bring themselves to tell the American people the truth about their cut and run strategy in Iraq or that they fully intend to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States at the earliest possible moment after they achieve power in the House.
It is clear from the polls that the American people are so fed up with Republicans that this summer, they turned toward the Democrats to see what they had to offer in the way of new ideas and new leadership. What they got was a blend of deranged Bush bashing, conspiracy mongering, and outright lies about their intentions. This latest Republican scandal will probably not amount to much (despite the efforts of the netnuts to make it into something larger than it is as they tried to do with the Gannon/Guckert affair) which means that as the American people continue to implore the Democrats to give them something that they can vote for, all they do is remind the country why they have lost so many previous elections in the first place.
UPDATE
As is usual when TBogg links here, the knuckledraggers with IQ’s smaller than their penis length swarm my site and spit vulgarity in the comments section with a regularity that makes me think they are either under 10 years of age or have the same familiarity with the English language than they do with the ideas of Proust or Kierkegaard – or Donald Duck for that matter.
I will brook no vulgarity (save mine) in the comments. If that doesn’t sit well with you, eat me.
Secondly, here is the sum total of what is known about GOP leadership knowledge of Foley’s perversion:
Shimkus recalled that when he initially questioned Foley about the e-mails, the congressman assured him that he was “simply acting as a mentor” and that “nothing inappropriate had occurred.”Foley said he was e-mailing to find out if the teenager was OK after Hurricane Katrina and “wanted a photo to see that the former page was all right,” Shimkus said.
Foley was ordered to have no further contact with the former page and advised “to be especially mindful of his conduct,” Shimkus said.
“And he assured us he would do so,” Shimkus’ statement added. “I received no subsequent complaints about his behavior nor was I ever made aware of any additional e-mails.”
In his e-mails, Foley purportedly asked the page to send a picture of himself to the congressman, asked the teen what he wanted for his birthday and made comments about another former page in which Foley allegedly said he acted “much older than his age” and was “in really great shape.” (More details)
Some GOP leaders knew of contact
An aide to Rep. Tom Reynolds, the New York congressman who heads the National Republican Campaign Committee, said he knew about the matter a year ago.
The GOP panel coordinates election efforts for House Republicans, who now must find a candidate to replace Foley in Florida’s 16th District, six weeks before the election.
Majority Leader John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, learned about the contacts from Louisiana Rep. Alexander in the spring, said Boehner’s spokesman, Kevin Madden.
“It was Congressman Alexander’s opinion that the contact was not of a professional nature,” Madden said.
Now I realize how eager many of you are to connect all these dots and start accusing people of all sorts of conpsiracies to keep this thing quiet. And I will happily join you in hanging by their toes the entire Republican leadership if it turns out that they knew more than what is reported here and failed to do anything.
But people – there is no “there” there. All you have to ponder at the moment is the very good question of what did they know and when did they know it. Nowhere in my post do I say that we shouldn’t get to the bottom of this (as one idiotic mouthbreather suggested breathlessly in the comments – so pleased with himself that he could string more than 4 words together and make a sentence) and in fact, I open a whole other line of questioning that even you netnuts have failed to highlight – the possibility of obstruction of justice by GOP members who worked to keep the parents of the boy whose case came before the Page board quiet.
But the fact of the matter is all you are doing at the moment is engaged in a gigantic smear campaign. Period. There is no argument there because the facts are, at the moment, unknown. You have jumped the gun making the wildest of charges without any knowledge whatsoever of the facts and all it does is expose you for the brutish louts you truly are.
Keep it clean or begone.
UPDATE II
My good friend and fellow American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman left a comment that deserves to be elevated for greater readability. It is, something of an eye popper:
Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this.
The far more damaging IM messages were released by CREW , the same “public interest” group which is representing the Wilson/Plames in their laughable suit against Cheney, et al.
When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into THIS MATTER had any knowledge of their(the IM’s) existence.
Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.
I read this morning that a Monroe, LA newspaper also had the story and didn’t run with it because there appeared to be no impropriety.
And one more point that our dimwitted lefty friends can’t seem to wrap their miniscule brains around; the incident that was brought to the attention of the Page Board is unconnected to any of the raunchy, sick emails ABC news got from, as Clarice informs us, CREW.
Why the release of the emails and IM’s now is a question that answers itself 40 days before an election. And if it turns out that the GOP leadership is blameless in this – if Foley carried on his perversions in secret with only the terrified children knowing of his activities – then the question rightly arises why a Democrat connected organization allowed someone they knew as a pervert to continue to stalk children in the House of Representatives, failing to release the information until maximum political damage could be done to the opposition.
9:33 am
The assertion of cover-up? Why would any sane political decision maker want to withhold damaging information? If Foley were outed in 2005 rather than weeks before an election, that would have been preferred. This scandal’s release timing is politically motivated. This falls into my “never substitute trust for good policy.” It should have been more fully investigated so that we wouldn’t have to rely on the trust of Foley.
10:15 am
The Sheikh and the Clintons’ Rising Net Worth
What’s behind the Clinton’s rapidly swelling personal coffers?
10:19 am
......and surely you will address the “innocent sounding attempts to inquire as to the youth’s well being” contained in (fmr) Rep. Foley’s IMs.
10:20 am
As they used to say back in the Watergate days, it ain’t the crime it’s the cover-up. If Hastert et al had just kicked Foley’s ass out of Congress when they first heard about his shenanigans 11 months ago this would be a non-issue today. But instead they kept quiet about and allowed Foley to maintain his post as the lead Republican Congressional watchdog on child abuse.
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/house-gop-leadership-knew-about-foley.html
And if you think the double whammy of Foley and Woodward isn’t going to have a political effect, Bush’s approval number in today’s Rasmussen Poll is back down to 39%. And things are just getting underway.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
10:25 am
SPS:
The next time you leave a comment without reading the post I will delete it.
I addressed the fact that Aravosis was smearing the GOP leadership by claiming they knew he was a pervert. That is a lie – a lie you just repeated. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they knew anything except he had sent a questionable email TO A FORMER PAGE who was caught in the path of Katrina. That and the fact that the parents wanted to drop the matter makes your scurrilous, baseless charge ring all the more hollow.
Read the damn post and address the issues I bring up or you will be prevented from commenting here. I’m sick to death of your blind, stupid postings that have little to do with the substance of what I write.
10:36 am
[...] The vast majority of conservative bloggers are united in their condemnation of Foley’s acts, but there’s a fair amount of defensiveness there, too, about the liberal blogosphere’s tone. Do they really not see the problem? [...]
11:19 am
Rick – Actually I did read your article, and as you have noted I disagreed with your assessment. There is considerable media speculation today that senior members of the GOP House leadership have been aware of the true nature of Foley’s predatory shenanigans for quite some time, and in my opinion it is not completely baseless.
But even if the Republican leadership was not aware of what was happening on their watch, are they not responsible for the conduct for those Republican Representatives serving under their leadership? I understand that the “I didn’t know” defense has been popular with the likes of President Bush and Defense Sec’y Donald Rumsfeld for a while now, but does that really absolve them of the responsibility for the many disasters that have occured on their watch? The buck has to stop somewhere, be it a war over non-existent WMD or the pedophillic prowlings of a GOP Congressman lusting after teenage House pages.
But that point may be moot.
Allow me to refer you to a breaking news piece in Roll Call, the noted nonpartisan newspaper that almost exclusively covers Capitol Hill:———————————————Foley Interviewed About Page Last Year; Democrats Not Told
Ethics Inquiry Ordered
At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/15259-1.html———————————————-
Fortunately the House yesterday approved by a 410-0 vote Nancy Pelosi’s call for a quick and thorough investigation of this matter. And we could have the results of this investigation within a week.
Hopefully this will clear the air and put to rest some of the concerns we all have here.
11:38 am
Sorry, not buying it.
As someone who was pursued by men just like Foley as a teen it was immediately appearant he was cruising this kid. They didn’t know because they didn’t want to know.
Let’s hear Hastert swear under oath he knew of no further information about Foley and his hunger for young pages.
Oh and a politically motived leak? Yeah, so what. And I’m not sure how effective the Barney defense is going to be with the faith & values crowd. Maybe try the old standby that it’s all Clinton’s fault.
11:42 am
SNP
I have deleted your comment…
I ALREADY LINKED THE SAME EXACT ROLL CALL PIECE YOU IGNORAMOUS!
11:48 am
You’re angry, Rick. I can understand that. The faith you placed in the
Republican party has been betrayed time and again. And with this particularly
seamy scandal, and coming as it does before a very hotly contested midterm
election, the party that you support could very well have nailed itself into
a political coffin from which they cannot escape.
You have placed your faith in extremely flawed individuals. You need to
recognize that.
11:55 am
Look, ninny. You’re talking to someone who has forgotten more about politics than you’ll ever know, seem more, been involved in more campaigns (Dem and Rep)than you ever will be. I have about as much faith in Republicans as I do in a can of peas.
Lose the nauseating condescending tone asshole. You’re warped worldview is going to get a lot of Americans killed eventually. I just hope I’m not one of them.
12:04 pm
Better than I can say it, this from Christy Harden Smith at Firedoglake: “Let me be crystal clear here: these are teenage children who are given an honorary position due to their exceptional grades, their outstanding community service work and any number of other reasons. They are working in the United States House of Representatives. They are teenagers.
“And the Republican leadership was aware that an elected Republican representative was sending personal e-mails and IMs to various teenage pages — but either didn’t investigate any more closely to see if they were wholly inappropriate and/or sexually explicit or what, according to Hastert’s hemming and hawing in the WaPo this morning…and they did not tell the Democratic leadership nor did they take any overt actions from what I’ve been able to ascertain to remove this Republican representative from contact with these teenagers other than telling him to act more appropriately.”
12:06 pm
Rick – If you have a little faith in Republicans as you claim, why are you so eager to jump in on the side of the Republican leadership in this matter? They had a pedophile running loose on the floor of Congress for God knows how long, and yet you seem willing to accept their excuses, excuses that might have very little behind them?
Wouldn’t a more seasoned political observer want to wait until all the evidence is available?
12:48 pm
That’s rich. I get advice to wait from Mr. Jumping to Conclusions himself.
If you read the post, you see where I find potential fault with the leadership – and highlight the blatant smear job by Democrats.
Not bad for a “seasoned observer”...
12:56 pm
Moran: “Democrats still could lose thanks to a party so intellectually bankrupt and morally ambivalent that they can’t bring themselves to tell the American people the truth about their cut and run strategy in Iraq or that they fully intend to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the United States at the earliest possible moment after they achieve power in the House.”
To begin, the Democrats do not have a “cut and run strategy in Iraq.” “Cut and run” is another Rovian slogan designed to smear Democrats with the charge of cowardice, which you so dutifully repeat in your rightwing flacking. What the majority of Democrats do voice publicly is a realization of no realistic military option to the political victory described by the Bush administration. Faced with that reality, a number of strategic alternatives have been proposed by Democrats. One being, and the most prominent, John Murtha’s redeployment over the horizon, where American troops are extracted from the civil war in Iraq but not from the region. Another put forth just last night by Sen. Levens of a gradual draw-down of U.S. troops that would force the Iraqi government to make the political compromises necessary to facilitate a resolution to the turmoil that now exists. A third Democratic strategy forwarded, on the record, by Joe Biden is that of a three way, at least temporary, partitioning of Iraq where the warring factions could go their respective neutral corners as sanctuary from the current violence. Not one of these strategies use the words “Cut and Run.” Therefore, Sir, that makes you the lair.
Having said that, let me ask you, what is your plan? “Stay the course?” That is not a strategy. “Adapt and win?” Just more sloganeering. Really I’m serious, given the realities on the ground in Iraq, what is the Republican plan for victory?
As for the ‘full intention to impeach the President,’ where is your evidence of that? I’m sure somewhere in the blogisphere you could find someone who has recommended that option, but I’m not aware of any serious discussion of impeachment in the Democratic leadership. Furthermore, even if you could substantiate such a claim, has the president committed any impeachable offenses? If not there is nothing to worry about, especially given the high standard set by the Republicans in the Clinton impeachment.
1:04 pm
As for the ‘full intention to impeach the President,’ where is your evidence of that? I’m sure somewhere in the blogisphere you could find someone who has recommended that option, but I’m not aware of any serious discussion of impeachment in the Democratic leadership.
Are you kidding me? When the goddman potential chairman of the Judiciary Committee comes out and says that he will hold impeachment hearings at the earliest possible moment (and then bitch Pelosi tells him to quiet down so they don’t rile the GOP base) how “serious” do you want the discussion to be?
As for what to do in Iraq – read my blog posts on it as well as my articles at American Thinker. It’s Saturday and I’ve got better things to do than advocate a policy from someone who wants to cut and run albeit in slow motion. If there is victory to be had in Iraq – and you might recall from that NIE that Dems are pissing all over themselves about saying that victory in Iraq will mean fewer terrorists (which I guess means we’ll be safer since more terrorists like we have to day means we’re not as safe)the Dems are not interested in seeking it.
They are for failure and defeat in slow motion. I find that policy immoral in that you are asking our men to risk their lives for nothing.
1:06 pm
#11:
That email was from 2003. If you can prove that the House leadership knew of the perverts activities back then, then they should all go to jail.
But there is not one shred of evidence that they knew – and the fact that the parents of the other child wanted the matter dropped would seem to indicate most everyone thought that there was nothing dangerous there.
1:11 pm
I suggest investigating this matter fully and let the chips fall where they may. The important thing is to bring perverts to justice no matter who they are.
1:41 pm
You want immoral? How about the fact the occupying forces that invaded Iraq have failed to provide security for the citizens of Iraq. Iraqibodycount.com has 43,500 minimum civilian deaths attributed to military intervention in Iraq. Now that’s immoral!
Senator Dick Durbin says that the latest NIE on the war on terrorism estimates “as of 9/11, there were 20,000 members of al Qaeda worldwide. Now there are 50,000.” Great a 250% increase in terrorists and 43,500 innocents dead. Talk about your Wrong Track.
2:00 pm
Turnabout
Most of the Iraqi civilians are being killed by “insurgents” not by American troops. This needs to be made abundantly clear. The problems in Iraq can be fixed by commiting more troops to provide for security. I’m hoping the Democrats will step up and show the leadership to get this done.
If we now have more terrorists than in 2003, this is becuase we have not fought decisively enough. When you commit to few troops to Iraq and Afghanistan it sends a message to the enemy that you are fundamentally not serious about what you are doing. Hopefully the Democrats will step and take the lead on getting more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can get more troops for the GWOT and Iraq. Its a matter of getting the will to do it. Right now the will seems to be lacking on the part of the electorate.
2:07 pm
We can get more troops for the GWOT and Iraq. Its a matter of getting the will to do it. Right now the will seems to be lacking on the part of the electorate.
Yes, and for good reason. Most of the electorate realizes that Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the US, and that W’s eliminate-the-WMD-turned-great-social-engineering-experiment is hardly worth dying for.
But I’m glad for the rich in this country, because they’ve made the ultimate sacrifice. They sacrificed having to pay a large chunk of their taxes to support the war. If you’re looking for anyone who lacks the will, look to the rich, who are not prepared to sacrifice money, let alone blood,for this stupid failed adventure.
2:10 pm
Uh oh! The Washington Post is now on record as saying that House Majority
Boehner admitted to them that he knew of Foley’s man/boy predilections
last spring.
“The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley’s GOP
colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks.
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post
last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate “contact”
between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post
and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901574.html
It’s those first unguarded reactions that get people some times.
2:15 pm
Moran #17
Your the one asking men [and women] to risk their lives for nothing…
2:15 pm
Rick:
But there is not one shred of evidence that they knew – and the fact that the parents of the other child wanted the matter dropped would seem to indicate most everyone thought that there was nothing dangerous there.
Part of me is thorougly disgusted by this comment by you. Nevertheless, I know that I know too goddamned much about sexual abuse, and some people don’t know anything. So let me try to explain.
Imagine this: you’re the parents of a 16 year old boy. A famous person has made terribly inappropriate overtures. No matter what happens, people are going to ask “how do we know it was all talk?” His friends (and his enemies) will wonder why this happened to him, and he’ll face constant questioning of his sexual identity, at a time when most boys are having troubles understanding things themselves.
Foley won’t confess; he’ll fight back, to protect his career and his freedom. Your son will be called a liar, and his honesty, and even his sanity, will called into question.
Are you going to put your son through that?
Maybe you can say you would, no questions asked. If so, you’re a fool, and I feel no guilt in saying so.
That the parents wanted it dropped says only that they felt that the costs of going forward were too high. They might feel that way whether something terrible happened, or whether something pretty minor happened. That they didn’t want to go forward tells us nothing about how bad it might have been.
2:20 pm
I doubt you are intentionally being naive. What it says to me is they didn’t want their son tangled up in a Michael Jackson sized scandal.
2:40 pm
I had pretty much the same thought, Republicans clean house, Democrats embrace their perverts as pillars of the party.
http://abaraxas.blogspot.com/2006/09/foley-republican-house-cleaning.html
Remember Democrat Gary Studds, he was accused of almost the exact same thing, only worse. He seduced and had an affair with under age House Pages. The democrats not only stood behind him, he was reelected.
2:40 pm
Chuck
If Iraq fails, it likely becomes a terrorist haven. It has not failed yet.
The threat from Iraq was believed to be its ability to transfer WMD to terrorists. About 30 nations along with the US evaluated this threat and agreed with us to the point that they agreed to assist us, in some way. Obviously much of the intellegence was wrong. The WMD clearly are not “there.”
Also, had we not intervened, the sanctions likely would have collapsed and Saddam’s regime would be stronger than ever now, as well as continuing to be an active supporter of terrorists. Saddam, as a supporter of terrorism, had to be dealt with in some way. It was also becoming clear even before 911 that the middle east, as it was, was becoming an existential threat to the US and the situation on the ground there needed to be radically altered. Iraq seemed a good place to start.
While many people realized that the situation in the middle east needed to be altered, the mission never got the resources it needed to give it a realistic chance of succeeding. If the stakes were properly explained to the American people, we could probably get the resources we need to do this properly. For failing to properly explain the stakes, I blame the politiicians in both parties and the news media. For failing to plan and execute a war properly, I blame Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush administration for failing to hold him accountable.
Now hopefully, as long as it is consistent with national security interests, the Democrats will take the lead on making the adjustment and get the proper troop and financial commitment to Iraq. If we succeed in Iraq, we can probably deal the Jihadists a very decisive defeat. For better or worse, it may not be in American national security interests to commit a larger amount of troops to Iraq right now. We need to be flexible enough to handle threats from Russia, China, and Venezuela.
The US government cannot even find the will to commit the appropiate resources to Afghanistan nor could it find the will to stand up Hezbollah during Lebanon’s war with Israel. The US capitulated before the UN and forced Israel into a cease fire. Had the war been allowed to continue for about three more months, Israel could have dealt a decisive defeat to the forces of Islamic extremism. Unfortunately a fundamentally unserious government lacked the will to see the fight through.
Since the will is lacking right now, the missions in Iraq and probably Afghanistan to will be scaled back very soon. Their will likely be fewer than 10,000 troops in Iraq by July of 2006. These will be mostly special ops who will be backed up by air support. They will be based in Kurdish areas and will be prepared to intervene in the Iraqi civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. Hopefully this will work, as this is the strategy that will be used.
A little perspective may be needed on the Iraq Body Count report of 43,500 deaths may be needed. The average rate of deaths per day for civilians was estimated at 75-125 per day during the rule of Saddam Hussein. If the Iraq Body Count report is accurate, as it probably is, this would be about 33 deaths per day since Hussein’s regime was removed. Also, a look at the data base shows that most of these deaths are being caused by the activities of terrorists who deliberately target civilians. If we commit the proper amount of troops to this, we can probably put a stop to this. Again, I’m waiting for the leader who will have the courage to step forward and point out what needs to be done.
In the final analysis, it should be clear to policy makers that the size and strength of the military needs to be increased substantially. Even if we withdraw from Iraq, we will need a larger military. in the coming years we are going to have be able to project a credible detterent to Russia, China, and Venezuela.
Right now we are not even able to find the will to do something as basic as border security. Right now the leadership is fundamentally unserious about national security.
2:53 pm
>Remember Democrat Gary Studds
Who?
Sorry, bringing up some relic from 23 years ago isn’t going to save you this time.
That’s right, the bogeyman you are attempting to use was censured almost a quarter century ago. And the Barney Frank defense? Well that little scandle happened in 1987. Michael Keaton hadn’t even made Batman yet.
People have entered Congress, served twenty years and since retired since the Studds affair broke. You might as well be pushing the Teapot Dome scandal.
Go sell crazy someplace else.
2:58 pm
Matthew,
Incorrect—First of all, it’s “Gerry,” not “Gary.”
Far from “standing behind” Studds, the Democratic-led House actually censured him in 1983 for the consensual relationship he’d had with a 17-year-old page (which had occurred 10 years prior).
“As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody’s business but their own.” [Wiki]
NB: Unlike the hypocritical Foley, Studd’s never actively supported and fought for anti-gay legislation. Quite the opposite, actually.
3:00 pm
I’ve been over on this side of the blogosphere the last couple of days, seeking someone who can enlighten me as to how awarding even more unchecked power to the Executive branch is an expression of conservative values and proper governance. It should come as no surprise that I never received an answer, not a single one. Plenty of ad hominem attacks, but not wisdom.
I endured much dumbassery in my quest. Then I stumble over hear and read that the Dems want to “cut and run, albeit in slow motion.” “Cut and run in slow motion”? That sounds like “wrap things up and leave.” Amazing…..
3:07 pm
So by the time the scanal broke, almost a quarter century ago, the young man in question was 27.
Well I can see how a conseual, albeit icky affair a decade old might not generate the heights of outrage you’d expect.
Foley on the other hand is a closet queen right now and the kid is still 16. Maybe still legal, but super icky. And still nothe point at all.
This congressman headed the committee charged with going after peoplel who prey on kids. O the irony.
Dennis Hastert better wear his asbestos underwear next week.
3:17 pm
“>Remember Democrat Gary Studds
Who? Sorry, bringing up some relic from 23 years ago isn’t going to save you this time.
That’s right, the bogeyman you are attempting to use was censured almost a quarter century ago. And the Barney Frank defense? Well that little scandle happened in 1987. ”
Yet despite Barney Frank abusing his office to get his gay prostitute live-in ‘friend’ off of traffic offenses, he stayed in office. Despite Studds’ abuse of office in going after teenage pages, he stayed in office …
“As the House read their censure of him, Studds turned his back and ignored them. Later, at a press conference with the former page standing beside him, the two stated that what had happened between them was nobody’s business but their own.†[Wiki]
Ah, the good ol’ days, before the era of Sexual Harrassment laws… you DO realize that if anyone but a gay Democrat Congressman did this, it would be a firing and possibly criminal offense?
The point is this: When a Democrat does this, HE STAYS IN CONGRESS.
“I had pretty much the same thought, Republicans clean house, Democrats embrace their perverts as pillars of the party.”
Agreed on that.
“NB: Unlike the hypocritical Foley, Studd’s never actively supported and fought for anti-gay legislation. Quite the opposite, actually.”
Ah, I see. If he is for the Gay Rights Agenda, he can proposition male teenagers, and everything is hunky dory.
IF he is against it, then suddenly sending emails to pages is a cimrinal offense… double-standard deluxe!
3:18 pm
The GOP leadership runs Congress and they let this Sicko have access to children for months of not years. After questions were raised, they kept it secret. Was it due to incompetence, indifference or greed to keep in power? I don’t care. It’s immoral.
No parent has the right to stop an investigation – they should hav elookind at the guy’s emails to the kid. There’s no privacy for “personal” use of government equipment. The boy’s parent can withdraw the complaint but the damn facts say the boy complained so investigate because it involves the safty of children. Maybe Congress can’t press charges without a formal complaint but looking into the matter—reading emails sent on government equipment—Congress would find out he’s a closet gay and pervert.
Yes, the man’s a closet gay—they should have outed him years ago if they really support traditional family values and social issues. He’s gay and preying on children left in his care. Disgusting.
3:25 pm
Of course the silver-lining in this cloud might just be that the Republican base finally realizes (something? finally?) just how uncaring their Leadership is of their “hot-button” issues—they can’t abide a homo, but apparently Hastert et al. not only abided one, but by inaction abetted this closet-case’s continued “grooming” of pages.
The Democrats rallying cry this week—and beyond—probably needs to be: “It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.”
Then again, that’s a pretty big word for the Bushbots to understand.
http://www.hardcoretruth.com/Hypocrisy/
3:29 pm
” To begin, the Democrats do not have a “cut and run strategy in Iraq.†“Cut and run†is another Rovian slogan designed to smear Democrats with the charge of cowardice, which you so dutifully repeat in your rightwing flacking. ”
Yes, they do …
“Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq” – SF Chronicle, November 17, 2005
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/17/MNGV2FPT755.DTL
Murtha wants to withdraw and deploy in Okinawa, that great war on terror battlefield (not). Lamont has done the same. The Democrats have it crystal clear.
It’s all about calling Iraq a failure and wanting to bug out, and to deny it is to deny the very Democrat talking points that the left has been touting for years. They want the US to fail in Iraq. The Democrats deny the basic reality that the war in Iraq is an integral part of the war on terror and that we simply cannot withdraw our troops – we have to stay and fight and win.
3:36 pm
Only reason this might not be “a big deal” is the Democrats don’t have $40 million and a friendly judge to go on a fishing expedition after some clothing stains.
It takes Republicans to go sniffing around other people’s crotches with that kind of money.
3:37 pm
A good question to ask during the investigations is how the Democrats managed to fail in their oversight function. We expect a “minority party” to be providing the proper oversight.
IncandenzaH
You are right the Republican party does not care about the voters or the so called “base.” Like you I hope they get it now and will vote for new leaders.
The Democrats need to ask their leaders how they failed in their oversight functions. To have failed in their oversight function this badly would indicate either incompetence or they knew about this for a year or so and did not nothing. This does not look good for either party.
Republicans and Democrats should demand new leadership. It is time to vote for someone other than the same old, same old that the Republicans and Democrats have to offer. It is time to vote in third parties to office.
3:41 pm
B.Poster… I’m sure the Dems would have performed their oversight functions, if the Republicans hadn’t consciously kept the information AWAY from the Democrats 11 months ago.
Please, don’t expect Democrats to clean the Republican house… especially when there’s a coverup going on and nobody on the outside’s been told it’s dirty!
As Josh Marshalls put it:
“I don’t think cover-up is too strong a word since there was apparently an active effort to keep the allegations from the only Democrat who serves on the Page Board. That decision, I think, speaks volumes.” (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/)
Me, too!
3:42 pm
His sexual orientation is irelevant. It’s the age of the other party that matters.
Horse Hockey. The Republicans own this one.
3:49 pm
Montysano, welcome to all things stupid.
The “albeit in slow motion” modification was a response to my previous post. Little victories, little victories.
The lack of response to your quest for “conservative values” justification for unfettered executive power is power. Men drunk with power desperately trying to keep power.
3:52 pm
Let’s pretend House Republicans are an ethical group. What should an ethical group of Republicans do now that the cat is out of the bag about Foley’s antics, that their leadership knew of said antics months ago (if not longer) and not only did nothing, but actively hid what was going on from Democrats.
A) Hastert resigns?
B) A stern rebuke of policies that keep people in the closet—hiding so deeply they can only seek out children via the Web?
C) Or do they just chuck the ethics (again) and try to pin blame on the Clintons?
4:02 pm
IncandenzaH
The Democrats would not allow the Repbulcians to keep sensitive files from them. I don’t think they are that incompetent. Part of the complete investigation will need to focus on this aspect.
Richard
The Republicans and the Democrats both manage the Government and it is owned by the people who elected the Representatives and Senators. The bottom line is the Democrats seem to have failed in their oversight function. By trying to shirk this responsibility indicates a party unworthy of being trusted with power. By covering for a pedophile, the Republicans show they are party unworthy of being trusted with power.
Montysano
The Government in general is to powerful. It has only grown more and more obtrusive over the years, however, the President does not have unfettered power. He is checked by the Courts and by Congress. If there is a branch with unfettered power, it would be the jJudicial branch. They are able to undo the will of the people virtually at whim. A good place to start with limiting Government power would be to weaken the power of the Judicial branch.
Btw, both parties will probably attempt to keep things hidden from the other, as it benefits them. This is why oversight is functioned. To keep folks accountahle.
4:03 pm
I am going to have to agree with Rick on the two main points.
1st. All Republicans cannot be held accountable for the actions of one man. If that was the case, then by virtue of one being a Democrat, we would say that all Democrats would do as Clinton did with Lewinsky, or that all Clergy are guilty because of a few very sick priests. The list goes on and on….
2nd. To the topic of Cut and Run… The Democrats ARE known as the party of cut and run, right or wrong, their actions, their constant whining, their continuous hype about “getting our troops home” BEFORE the job is done, is what has given them this name and reputation.
The Democrats are the terrorists best and only hope of winning. The Democrats are Al-Qaida’s new best friend, whether they meant things to get to that point or not, it has.
I am an EX-democrat that will be voting republican now, because I finally saw the nature of we had become.
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains….... Winston Churchill, Sir (1874-1965)”
4:06 pm
he bottom line is the Democrats seem to have failed in their oversight function.
Right. Oversight of a body they don’t control.
Uh, I need to get back to planet Earth now.
4:08 pm
Expect Democrats to clean Republican house?
Why should they be expected to in the first place?
And I’d really like to know what “the job is done” with respect to Iraq MEANS.
4:10 pm
Mr. Moran,
There is a simple strategy for “winning” in Iraq. Let’s just get about 200,000 Iraq War supporters to head on over to their local military recruiting offices and join the grand war on terror. Check http://www.goarmy.com for more details.
4:10 pm
Its interesting that you would bring up blame Clinton. Clinto has nothing to do with this. The use ofthe term “Bushbot” was also interesting. Personally I can’t stand George W. Bush but both he and Bill Clinton are not relevant to the discussion.
4:10 pm
B.Poster… what are you talking about? What “sensitive files”?
“Failed in their oversight function”? How can they oversee anything when the Republicans kept it hidden from Democrats view?
I’ll state the case again: The Republicans first went to their Campaign Committee when this first came out 11 months ago… they did NOT inform any offical organ of the house itself, they definitely did not inform the Democrats (not even those on the Page Committee).
I ask you: Where were the Dems supposed to find these elusive and “sensitive files?”
In the “Top Secret” Shared File Cabinet on the House floor?
(And your solution is to weaken the Courts?... Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot the name of this site. Nevermind.)
4:13 pm
Mr Moran:
Interesting piece—but you may regret sounding somewhat naive after more facts emerge. Having grown up outside Washington, I know powerful Congressmen almost never resign so quickly without the intervention of their leadership.
I have a prediction. The Republican leadership is looking at scapegoats now, and they will likely throw Rep. Reynolds (R-26th NY) and Rep. Shimkus (R-19th IL) as sacrificial lambs. It may not work. Republicans will be very, very angry about this scandal, much more so than Democrats might be (although to be fair, I’d bet they’d also lash out at a member on their side who did something this aggregious).
I also agree with the earlier post by Longhairedwierdo about why parents chose to avoid exposure when their children are at risk of a second, more damaging media frenzy surrounding sexual abuse (even if only solicited) by someone like a powerful Congressman. Based on what I’ve read from his sexually explicit text messages, former Rep. Foley is likely to go to jail—and should.
4:18 pm
Congressman Mark ‘Page Boy’ Foley Resigns
I thought twice (actually, four times) about blogging this, but what the hey?
I try to avoid salacious stuff, but it’s Friday, so…whatever.
Last night I read that Republican Congressmen Mark Foley [6:07 p.m.: He took down his web site.]...
4:36 pm
Mark Foley resigned. What does that say about some of the remarks on this page?
The number of republican talking points on this page is astounding. It is as if very few can think for themselves. Why is that?
We should be more concerned about the hegemony over people’s ability to think for themselves. I could have told you what most of those who post think, by just
checking out the daily RNC talking points. It is a sad
day when people line-up early so they can be the first to spread propaganda to their “fellow” Americans.
Much of it has to do with the sickness of having to always be “right” when the intellect would be better served by witholding judgement until a person has had time to digest, reflect and understand the information being dished out by those with an agenda that undermines our democratic republic and disrespects the rule of law.
One of the most disturbing behaviors exhibited by many misinformation pushers is how quickly and willingly they are able to sell-out their fellow citizens for a few dollars more.
4:42 pm
Richard
The Democrats can and do block things when they don’t get what they want. The Republicans would do the same, if they were the minority party. The notion that they have no control does not seem to be accurate. When it comes to the Senate, they have even more power. They can and do filibuster anything they don’t like. The Republicans would do the same. America is very much a part of planet earth. Washington is run on a system of checks and balances. Right now no one party has enough Representatives or Senators to have absolute control. Also, there is much diversity within the parties. No one group has control.
IncandenzaH
Both parties have been amazingly unsuccessful at keeping secrets from each other for a long time. I just have been unable to imagine how this case would be any different. Now I could be wrong. Perhaps the Republicans became much more clever at keeping secrets than they used to be.
In any event, former Rep Foley, if convicted, should get a very lengthy jail sentence. I also think House leaders should be charged and convicted, if it is proven they actively tried to cover for someone who they knew was a pervert.
The investigations will reveal who knew what and when they knew it. In any event, former Rep Foley will probably go to jail. Other Republicans will probably go down with him, as they should, if they are guilty of a cover up.
Until the investigation is completed, it would be unfair to link the actions of a few as indicative of the entire party. I would say the same thing, if a Demcrat stood accused.
While I wish something had been done sooner, I think Republicans are proceeding on the right path right now. Rep Foley has resigned and an investigation is about to get under way. Hopefully this will reveal all of the facts. If a cover up is proven, the Republicans will likely lose the House and the Senate, as they should. I also hope members of Congress will focus on investigating a case of sexual misconduct and work on bringing guilty parties to justice and not try to use the investigation as a tool to score political points.
Steve-ex pat
200,000 more troops would make a big difference. A friend who has served in Iraq says, if you really want to help the troops, ENLIST. I would but my eyesight is not good enough.
4:51 pm
Susan Said:
4:03 pm
All Republicans cannot be held accountable for the actions of one man.
Wrong sister. Choosing to support a psychopath in the Oval is the responsibility of all Republicans, you included. You’re about as fine and upstanding as the Catholic Cardinals and Bishops who knowingly permitted pedophile priests to continue abusing children. Own it.
4:58 pm
[quote]The number of republican talking points on this page is astounding. It is as if very few can think for themselves. Why is that?
[unquote]
Funny..that was exactly what I was thinking about the driveling snivelling democrats on this thread..you know. the party of Bill Clinton and his rather numerous sexual escapades that included INTERNS, or unwilling partners. How about that Swim the river Ted Kennedy?
Plese.. party of cut and run members and that IS all you have (not one of you can name any clear answers from your famously silent party on what your strategy is and the HINT is.. THERE ISN’T one!)
You ignored the point of the original post. You have nothing better to do than find “hyposcrisy” because some of us don’t see your good time gang as the way to do anything
once you boot out pelosi for her misuse of funds, make sure your air america faces charges of their stealing from boys and girls, boot out both Clinton, Kennedy and your other immoral group, you have no leg to stand on.
You wonder about hypocrisy, yet all you do is divide. You don’t help. You don’t reach out. You post doctor pictures of Conservative pundits and bash your little strawman as real
Stupid.
5:01 pm
“Plese.. party of cut and run members and that IS all you have (not one of you can name any clear answers from your famously silent party on what your strategy is and the HINT is.. THERE ISN’T one!)”
I say again – what’s the goal?
You need to articulate a goal before you can have a strategy, and I sure don’t see anyone saying WHAT needs to be accomplished.
5:07 pm
Republicans appear to be the party of “Send others to die so we can keep calling the Democrats the party of ‘cut and run.’”
The day they have a draft and the keyboard soldiers supporting this war actually have to fight would be the day of “cut and run” for most every Republican between 18 and 42.
5:12 pm
Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this.
The far more damaging IM messages were released by CREW , the same “public interest” group which is representing the Wilson/Plames in their laughable suit against Cheney, et al.
When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into them had any knowledge of their existence.
Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.
5:14 pm
should read:
When did they get the IM’s? Why did they wait until now to release them? Is there any indication the Republicans who looked into THIS MATTER had any knowledge of their(the IM’s) existence.
Pardon an old lady’s suspicions. I’ve seen this dance too many times before.
5:46 pm
Noelie Said:
4:58 pm
...the driveling snivelling democrats on this thread..you know. the party of Bill Clinton and his rather numerous sexual escapades that included INTERNS, or unwilling partners. How about that Swim the river Ted Kennedy?
Noelie puts interns in caps to emphasise her belief they are underage, asexual and incapable of consenting. Monica VOLUNTEERED for sex with Bill Clinton. It was WILLING and CONSENSUAL. He was prosecuted for lying about having sex with her, not for having sex.
Noelie, another dumbass who believes torturing people is good and consensual sex is bad. Snivelling and drivelling is her specialty.
5:56 pm
All Republicans can’t be blamed for the pedophilia of ONE Republican. By the same token, all Democrats can’t be blamed for each inflammatory headline.
Patrick #36 quoted the following headline:
“Murtha calls for immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq†– SF Chronicle, November 17, 2005
But at the link, the Chronicle said:
“Murtha said troops should be withdrawn in stages, so their safety is not jeopardized. He suggested that all 148,000 could be withdrawn within six months, but that a “rapid deployment force should be kept somewhere else in the Middle East.”
See the difference, anyone? Darn that liberal media!!
Rick said (#17):
“If there is victory to be had in Iraq – and you might recall from that NIE that Dems are pissing all over themselves about saying that victory in Iraq will mean fewer terrorists (which I guess means we’ll be safer since more terrorists like we have to day means we’re not as safe)the Dems are not interested in seeking it.”
The NIE doesn’t say victory will mean fewer terrorists; it says defeat could mean MORE terrorists (not exactly the same thing). And the NIE doesn’t say winning in Iraq means fewer terrorists than four years ago. (Wrong. Herre’s a direct quote from the NIE: “Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.” Sounds like success in Iraq equals fewer terrorists to me.)
Anyway, I’m not interested in anything that goes after “If there is victory to be had in Iraq…” because there simply isn’t. It’s wishful thinking that our military is (or can be) large enough, tough enough, and well-armed enough to bend a billion Muslims (or 26 million Iraqis) to our will. Sure, we could annihilate every living thing in Iraq; that, we could certainly do. But wipe out everybody we don’t like, or everybody that doesn’t like us, without genocide? That, we CANNOT do.
As for all the Democratic = “cut-and-run” rhetoric… It was Ronald Reagan that pulled us out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing, and he didn’t do anything about the Iran hostage crisis, except to pick up the hostages when Carter had already negotiated their release. The day after Black Hawk Down, Republican congressmen were demanding that we leave Somalia, and they seriously looked for ways to force Clinton to withdraw faster than he wanted to. (He didn’t want to at all.)
I’m not saying Reagan or Republicans in general are “cut-and-runners”; I’m saying the issues are much more complicated than that. Reagan “won the cold war” (if you want to give him the credit) NOT by attacking other countries, but by steadily managing threats, police-style. He built a large military, but it was an investment in peace-keeping and deterrence, not a war machine on the march.
Attacking Iraq doesn’t make Dubya smarter, tougher, or more successful than Ronald Reagan.
6:01 pm
Man.
You wicked cwazy.
6:20 pm
Pere Ubu
The goal for Iraq is or, at least it should be, an Iraq that is allied with the US, is stable, and is a western style democracy. To achieve all of these goals, it seems to me that more troops will need to be commited. Also, we made a BIG mistake when we allowed Islamic extremists to enter the political process. We should begin working to try and isolate them and to remove them from power. Islamic extremists have no place in a democratic process of a free country. In order to achieve this will require significantly more troops. It will need the support of the American people, the American government, and the American news media. It will also require a very long time. With a massive troop commitment we should be able to get insurgency under control and the terrorist attacks should subside, however, American troops will be needed for a long time. If we could achieve all of these goals, this would have a HUGE benefit for us. This is probably why our major competitors of Russia, China, their friends in the Arab world, and their friends in South America don’t want us to succeed.
Not every one in the American government shares this goal. In crafting a plan for Iraq, it seems all of these groups whose goals are vastly different had to be brought together. As a result of the compromise, we got the worst of all possible plans. We contributed to many troops to the Iraq to avoid the responsibility of running the country but not enough troops to actually run the country effectively!! Because of this we are left hoping that the Iraqi police and military we are training will be up to the job. So far that strategy is not going well. To be blunt, who ever planned the war did not share the more ambitious goals of bginging liberal democracy to Iraq or working to reform the middle east.
Due to differing goals within various groups within the government the US often times simultaneously pursues policies that are completely contradictory!! To achieve a stable, allied, and Democratic Iraq will require the Government to all be on the same page and it will take a multi year and perhaps multi decade commitment.
When the choice was made to invade Iraq we had basiclly two options. Either of them, if properly implemented, would have been workable. They are as follows: 1.) Use a small number of troops. These would probably be special ops forces. This group would probably number about 20,000 or so, perhaps less. This group would be backed up by air support. The things targeted would be the government and the suspected WMD sites would be searched. Also, the oil assets would need to be secured. This is not because we want their oil but we don’t want them torching the oil wells like they did when they invaded Kuwait. This would likely be sufficient for regime change but it would not be sufficient to run the country. Most of the fighting on the ground and the governing would be left to the militias. In other words, with this method, we completely avoid the responsibility of nation building or of running the country. Our only roles would be to search the WMD sties and remove the regime. I think this has been refered to as the “Rumsfeld doctrine.” 2.)Commit a massive number of troops. 500,000 or more would probably be needed. This gives us the ability to actually control the country, disarm the militias, secure the weapons caches, search the WMD sites, and secure the oil infrastructure. As you can probably tell from my posts here, I prefer option 2. I think this is has been referred to as the “Colin Powell doctrine.”
My belief is that either method would have worked, however, due to the compromise the number of troops we commited made us unable to avoid the responsibility of running the country but it was to few troops to actually do it!! We can change this and add the necessary troops and finacial resources to achieve this. To do this will be VERY hard and it will require an ENORMOUS commitment. At this stage, such a commitment may not even be feasible. We have to remain flexible enough to project a credible deterrent to Russia, China, and Venezuela.
Even if it were feasible to make the commitment to Iraq to achieve an allied, stable, and democratic Iraq, at this time, the will is lacking. As such, the mission will be scaled back very soon. The Iraq Study Group will probably issue its report soon, which will recomend reducing forces in Iraq. By July 2007 there will be 10,000 troops or less stationed in Iraq. These will be in Kurdish areas and they will primarily consist of special ops who will be backed up by air support. They will intervene, in Iraq’s civil war, as necessary, to prevent the formation of terrorist bases. If this strategy is correctly implemented we can probably achieve a stable and nominally allied Iraq, however, without a greater American commitment the attempt to bring liberal democracy to Iraq is largely over.
Iraq may one day achieve a liberal democracy but barring major changes in the domestic politcal situation the US will have had nothing to do with it. As I’ve stated before, if I’m wrong and we still have a massive troops commitment in Iraq by July 2007 I will come here and admit I was wrong. I hope this change in course will work because it is the one that will be selected.
6:26 pm
I agree. Why spoil a good scandal with facts.
It’s much easier to spoil one by blaming the other party.
Jesus Christ.
6:32 pm
You’re angry at the wrong people, Rick. Just saying.
6:32 pm
The best defense you right wing types can come up with is that this guy Foley (along with DeLay, Ney and Cunningham) is a victim of another liberal witch hunt? By George, I think that will work with your base.
I wonder who’s next? Jerry Lewis isn’t looking so great, and Hastert himself, well I wouldn’t bet the farm on the long run prospects for fatso. Of course, someone besides Foley will probably go down for this one. You may protest all you want, but come on, people knew.
6:56 pm
Steve ex-expat
I’m all for a draft. I think it should have been called for after the 911 attacks. Even if we decide to withdraw from Iraq, a draft is needed. We need to be able to project a crdible deterence against Russia, China, and Venezuela. Hugo Chavez is truly a grave and gathering threat who is far more dangerous to the US than Iraq or Iran could ever hope to be. To properly handle all of this, we need a larger and more powerful force structure. Due to what has been, to date, a poorly executed Iraq policy, Russia, China, and Venezuela probably see us as a big joke.
Lesley
If “torture” means we can’t make a suspected terrorist uncomfortable via the use of techniques like sleep deprivation, extreme cold, loud noises, standing for long periods of times or a belly slap then we may as well surrender and get this over with. Things like water boarding I’m uncomfortable with. How we decide to interrogate prisoners must be understood in light of the fact that we are trying to prevent “American Hiroshima.” This is not an easy situation to resolve. By referring to these mild techniques as torture, the difficulty of what we face is obscured. We will have to navigate this very carefully.
I have little use for President Bush at this time. I’m assuming he is as dishonest as most politicians are. He will ultimately be held responsible for the defense of the country. The responsibilty of preventing another terrorist attack rests on his shoulders. As such, he and any other POTUS will want as wide of a lattitude as possible. It is up to Congress, the Courts, and the news media to provide checks on his power. So far, they have done a good job of this. The recent Hamdan decision by the Supreme Court is a good example of the Courts acting to limit the power of POTUS.
As I recall the interogation bill that recently passed was approved by Senator John McCain. I don’t agree with his stance on many issues but this man seems to have more integrity than any other member of Congress. Apparently the compromise reached is good enough for him and for majority of the members of Congress. We shall see if it holds up in court. I’m sure someone wil challenge it.
There are allot of things that don’t work in the US but our system of checks and balances works. With an open and transparent system like we have, if we work together, we should be able to achieve something we can all live with. Unfortunately over the top rhetoric that is used by bot the “left” and “right” is not helpful.
7:00 pm
Keep insulting Moron. I’m enjoying watching his bile-filled invective in the comments thread. The man’s almost as rabid as he is stupid.
7:07 pm
B.Poster, it’s obvious supporting the torture bill makes you uncomfortable because in your pretty head you’re imagining, that the torture Americans inflict on POWs won’t really hurt them. That the most they’ll feel is a pin-prick, like at the doc’s office. You might want to revisit the photos from Abu Ghraib, and those were taken before Bush had the opportunity to legalize pain and humiliation. If you think they haven’t been, aren’t, and won’t be hurting people – who haven’t been charged, who can’t get fair public trials or lawyers, who may not even be guilty (see the Arar file – he spent a year in a coffin size cell being tortured gratis for the USA) you’re delusional.
You really want to feel good about this decision, but you never will and, when it all comes to shit, when we start to hear of atrocities, when the bodies start surfacing, don’t even think of saying “I was lied to by my president…I voted for harmless torture.” Live with it.
7:09 pm
I think the issue is not whether Tom Foley is a pervert. It seems pretty much a given that he is. He should spend a long time in jail. If anyone covered for him, they should go down to. The Repbulicans will get a chance to name a replacemnt for him. If any one covered for the former Rep, they will be forced to resign in disgrace and will probably go to jail for a long time, as well.
This will give the Republicans an opportunity to nominate true Conservatives. Foley voting record does not seem to fit the bill as a true Conservative. The Repbulcians will get to nominate one or more replacement candidates. I hope they choose wisely and nominate true limited government, pro-life Conservatives.
7:12 pm
The bottomline is this:
Foley is a scumbag, and a predator; and good riddance!
IF, and I repeat IF, ANY Republican Leadership, IF, knew about this, in the sense that he was a predator of boys, then a POX on them, for allowing this to slide, and whatever happens to them, and their party, as a result, is THEIR fault!
Again, IF, that was/is the case! So, that’s an IF; and I’ll admit, we don’t know all the facts yet on that particular issue!
None of that obviates, the below FACTS, however:
Clinton was, and is a Lying Scumbag himself…and LEFTISTS like Salty Party Snax and Richard Bottoms, admire him, because they all wish they could’ve abused the power of their Presidential office and position, to knock the bottom out of a 21 year old intern who worked for them as well, grope other women, and even rape one! Truth HURTS fellas, sorry! It’s the only thing that explains the LEFT’S FASCINATION and Support of Clinton! JEALOUSY and Admiration; DAMN, way to go guy, look what he got to do….gotta admire that; all the while fooling his stupid wife and daughter! Guy must be a genius, how do I do THAT!
By the way, I PERSONALLY VOTED FOR CLINTON; so you can’t accuse me of being a “Republican”! I’m a registered Independent, who gave up on the Democrats, when it became obvious that they had given up their souls to the Leftwing NUT bags who HATE America, and want to destroy it, like Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Sean Penn, Al Franken, etc., etc.
IF Foley was a Decomract, he’d be enshrined in the Democratic Hall of Fame, and re-elected for the next 20 terms, have a heroic movie made about his life by Leftist Hollywood, and played by Sean Penn, and get to appear on Oprah, with a tell-all book about his life, blaming it all on the Republicans!
The Democratic Leftists ARE “cut and run”; DO hate the troops, hate American First, have Bush Derangement syndrome, that has collectively induced a mass type of hysteria and psychosis, that has burned out their cerebral synapses, etc….
And are DESPERATELY trying to find someone, ANYONE, that they can surrender too, in both Iraq and Afghanistan; as they say…”any port in a storm…
Via the Ballot Box, we MUST NEVER allow LEFTIST like Richard Bottoms and Salty Party Snax have political power AGAIN! We MUST do EVERYTHING in our POWER, to show the average American Voter, the TRUE nature of these delusional, LEFTISTS; this festering, fetid colony of Lunar Chiroptera, who HATE their OWN Country so much, who are so filled full of Paranoid, Leftist Fantasies, that they are willing to sell out their own Country, to Islamic Radical Jihadis, and who have fallen SOOOOOOOOOOO far in LOVE with the Jihadis, that when you watch Zawahiri’s latest Propaganda tape, released just yesterday, the CONVERGENCE of LEFTIST DEMOCRATIC Talking Points, Al Jazeera Propaganda, and Al Qaeda militant Behead-them=all” fantasies, it is BREATH-TAKING in it’s similarity, and stunning in it’s scope of Quisling Collusion!
So, those ARE the facts, and the last word on the matter.
PS: Richard Bottoms & Salty Party Snax:
7:14 pm
IF, and I repeat IF, ANY Republican Leadership, IF, knew about this…
Jesus, are you idiots still trying to spin this?
There’s no goddam “if” about it, bubula… you guys are screwed. Live with it.
7:18 pm
Little Miss Dave: you didn’t read the whole post; now go the end of the Loonie line with Richard Bottoms and Salty Party Dog…
Go now….
Sigh…..........
7:20 pm
Little Miss Dave: you’ve lost control of your bladder, and your now drooling, to the end of the line, now quickly…
7:25 pm
As for McCain having integrity, excuse me while I throw up. If anything, McCain’s endorsement of this hideous bill has given wafflers an out.
7:27 pm
Via the Ballot Box, we MUST NEVER allow LEFTIST like Richard Bottoms and Salty Party Snax have political power AGAIN! We MUST do EVERYTHING in our POWER, to show the average American Voter, the TRUE nature of these delusional, LEFTISTS; this festering, fetid colony of Lunar Chiroptera, who H—
Jesus, talk about losing control of their bladder…
7:28 pm
It was widely suspected in DC that Foley was homosexual.
As far as I can tell all Reynolds told Hastert aboust was the father innocuous emails sent to a 16 year old FORMER page who initiated the correspondence AND whose parents did not want to press the matter.
Hastert told Reynolds to look into it. Reynolds confronted Foley who claimed innocent intention and promised to cease this correspondence and any other private correspondence with pages.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the leadership knew anything more than the innocuous emails.
7:29 pm
Sigh…..
Ah, Little Miss Dave, My, My, My… the TRUTH and FACTS hurt! I know, it’s okay….
Please post your address for me; I’ll go online and order you a care package from RX.com of Prozac and Depends….
Hurry up now…..
Sigh….....
7:33 pm
B. Poster (71):
Jail? I haven’t heard any charges against Foley that could possibly lead to jail time. Have you?
7:36 pm
Dave: okay, I’m done.
I’m tired of undressing you in public, it’s NOT a pretty sight, trust me!
OUCH!
I’m off to another Blog, to OBLITERATE some other delusional, self-hating, cheese-eating, American-hating, surrender-monkey LEFTISTS!
It’s actually almost not fair…...
Sigh….....
7:38 pm
(I have to proofread better):
It was widely suspected in DC that Foley was homosexual.
As far as I can tell all Reynolds told Hastert about was the rather innocuous emails sent to a 16 year old FORMER page who initiated the correspondence AND whose parents did not want to press the matter.
Hastert told Reynolds to look into it. Reynolds confronted Foley who claimed innocent intention and promised to cease this correspondence and any other private correspondence with pages.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the leadership knew anything more than the innocuous emails
____
dave—the emails don’t come close to anything more than rather creepy for which there is as yet no criminal statute.
7:41 pm
BTW, you realize this scandal is now being referred to as “Predatorgate”?
Just thought I’d share…
7:42 pm
...the emails don’t come close to anything more than rather creepy for which there is as yet no criminal statute.
Wrong. But it’s the IMs that are going to fry his ass. So you’re wrong twice. Thanks for playing.
7:43 pm
Mac asks if this was a set up? That the correspondence suggests it may have been. He asks an even more important questions—How does anyone not a party to an IM conversation get copies of that communication?
http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/
7:44 pm
Dave 83:
“Attempting to entice underage minors to perform sexual acts over the Internet is a felony, according to the law the Republicans recently passed on the subject. For purposes of that law, 18 is the age of consent.”
I’m not trying to defend Foley, but… did the e-mails really add up to that? I don’t know; maybe they did.
Dave also said:
“Eat it, mo..f…ers.”
Lots of class there, Dave!!
8:01 pm
“IGNORAMOUS”
Hey, I know that it’s hard to string ten letters together to make a legitimate word. Maybe you should stick with smaller ones.
8:05 pm
Lesley
Torture is where someone’s head is sawed off for a tv propaganda film. Torture is where teenage girls are stoned for indecent acts. Torture is where a boy’s arm is run over because he was accused of stealing something. This kind of stuff happens regularly in the middle east.
The interrogation bill we have now does not allow for anything this extreme. It is little more than what a fraternity might subject its pledges to. At worst, it is as painful as what a football player might experience. Our own military personnel are suffered to harsher treatment than our interrogators are entitled to subject these people to. That said it is clearly much rougher than a pin prick at the doctors office.
You did correctly point out that there are aspects that make me uneasy. I’m trying to balance the need for tough interrogation that will work that might be overly aggressive with the need to prevent “American Hiroshima.” By declaring it all “torutre” it makes it seem morally equivelent to what the Iranians or the North Koreans do. Very respectfully, with such over the top rhetoric it becomes very difficult to have a reasonable debate. This is a bill that is supposed to define how we can interrogate prisoners. It is not morally equivelent to what Iran or Russia does.
Abu Ghraib was VERY bad. The media would never let us forget this, even if we wanted to. We should not forget it. We should learn. With that said, this incident was probably the most investigated incident in American history. The people who carried it out have been prosecuted and are serving their time. While it needed to be reported, it was blown out of proportion. It did not warrant aboout 50 front page NYT stories. A better use of trees would have been to spend this time reporting on Al Qaeda’s plans for American Hirsohima. Abu Ghraib is over. The culprits are in jail. It is time to move on.
I’ll check out the arar file you mentioned. As I reacll there have been a number of incidents where people were tortured and killed. These people were prosecuted. This is the difference between us and our enemies. They glorify this stuff and they do not do the soul searching we do. I trust the guys that carried out the arar incident you refer to will be prosecuted.
Very respectfully, I don’t think your worst fears on massive amounts of bodies turning up will be realized. There is to much accountabilty. Groups like ICRC and Amnesty International are closely monitoring every thing we do. Congress will be watching. Also the Supreme Court can step in, as well.
The US turned over Abu Ghraib to the Iraqis. it seems they want the Americans back. It seems they were treated better under the Americans and they had Amnesty Interntaional to monitor every thing. Once the US left Abu Ghraib, the humans rights watch dogs seem to have lost interest.
I did not “vote” for this bill. Actually I’m not sure if I support it or not. John McCain who is probably the most honest politician we have apparently supports it. This goes a long way toward making me more comfortable with it but I’m undecided about it. More study, agonizing, and soul searching is in order.
The point was and still is that over the top rhetoric whether it comes from the “left” or the “right” is not helpful to the debate. I actually suspect the Supreme Court will want take a look at this, in the near future. The issue is likely not decided yet.
If we want a compromise that Lesley can live with, I would suggest the Democrats nominate Lindsay Graham to replace Donald Rumsfeld. I amy not agree with the Senator on all the issues but he is a former JAG officer who seems to be full of integrity, at least more so than the average politician. If he were confirmed, on a scale of 1 to 10, I suspect he would shift 8 degress toward President Bush and President Bush would shift 2 degress toward Senator Graham. The reason for the sudden willingness to compromise would be that Mr. Graham now would be sitting in the big chair as Sec of Defense and it will be his responsibilty to prevent another 911 style attack.
In the mean time, Congress continues to provide over sight. What we have now is probably not the final version of what we will end up with. I hope we can come up with something that is workable that we can all live with.
8:07 pm
Predatorgate? No kidding-I’d call it Plame II —the Dems are already calling for the appointment of a Special prosecutor—to, get this, investigate the Republican leadership.
Frankly, it’s time to investigate CREW
How did they get the IMs? When did they get them? If they were concerned about approaches to postpubescent boys why didn’t they give this info to Hastert? Why did they sit on it until 40 days before the election?
8:11 pm
Maybe Fitz can be appointed—then he can fail to ask CREW how they got the IM’s, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with “whistleblowing” and nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.
8:17 pm
Bobby
I think what I said is he should spend time in jail, not necessarily that he would. Seducing a 16 year should result in jail time. In any event, I think the question will not be whether Foley is a pervert. I think the question is going to be if Republican leadership knew about it and covered it up.
This will be thouroghly investigated. Even if the Republicans don’t want to investigate it, the Democrats and media will make sure it is investigated. No stone will be left unturned. If it is determined that anyone did act to cover this up, they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
If a number of Republicans are forced to resign, this will give them a chance to nominate new candidates. If this happens, hopefully we can get some true conservatives to run. This may give us an opportunity to roll back some of GW Bush’s big government programs.
8:17 pm
Aside from the question of propriety, solicitation of a 16 year old is not apparently an illegal act in D.C.”
CHAPTER 41 SEXUAL ABUSE § 22-4101. Definitions.
(3) “Child” means a person who has not yet attained the age of 16 years.
8:19 pm
Sure to send lefties over the edge, the age of consent in DC is 16, and according to the transcripts the 16 year old looked pretty consensual.
8:20 pm
“if Foley carried on his perversions in secret with only the terrified children knowing of his activities – then the question rightly arises why a Democrat connected organization allowed someone they knew as a pervert to continue to stalk children in the House of Representatives, failing to release the information until maximum political damage could be done to the opposition”
So, if Foley was terrifying children, and the republican leadership knew about it, then it’s the democrats fault, because they leaked the info to the media?
I’ve thought about this for 6 years, and now I’m sure, you guys are insane.
“...in secret with only the terrified children…”
I bet you have no clue as to how bizarre that statement is. (Only to someone with the critical thinking skills of a marmoset. Once again and with feeling…THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE HOUSE LEADERSHIP OR ANY REPUBLICAN FOR THAT MATTER KNEW OF FOLEY’S DIRTY IM’S TO PAGES. NONE ZERO. ZIP. NADA. YOU ARE LEAPING TO A CONCLUSION NOT BUTRESSED BY THE FACTS)
8:27 pm
ScaryPatriot
If the Republicans leadership knew what was going on they should be prosecuted and they will be. I don’t the investigation has been completed yet.
Clarice
I’m largely with you on this. Any proper investigation into this will focus on the issues you mention. It is important that Tom Foley pays the price for this, as he looks to be guilty, and it is important that anyone who covered for him or anyone who knew about this and failed to report it should pay the price, as well.
8:33 pm
It seems that Speaker Hastert may have already been caught lying about what he knew and when he knew it. If this turns out to be true, there will likely be multiple resignations of Republican congressmen. In any event, this will give them a chance to clean up their party. Will they take it? Probably not. They will probably do what most powerful do. Rather than take responsibility they will try to blame others.
8:36 pm
Aside from the question of propriety, solicitation of a 16 year old is not apparently an illegal act in D.C.
True enough, but it appears that Foley has run afoul of federal anti-sexual-predation laws.
Still, are you really so blinded by your loyalty to the GOP that you would be willing to overlook this creepy behavior, AND to overlook the House Republicans’ non-response?
8:39 pm
This is a slander on the Republican leadership and yet another Soros financed fake scandal.
Personally, I think the D.C. police ought to investigate CREW to see if they had evidence of improper solicitations of children (the guy in the emails was NOT a child under DC law; the guy in the IMs may have been) and failed to notify the authroities.
8:40 pm
Man,you Republicans are insane.
8:41 pm
milo Said:
10:19 am
......and surely you will address the “innocent sounding attempts to inquire as to the youth’s well being†contained in (fmr) Rep. Foley’s IMs.
....or maybe not….”Another perfectly logical explanation” is that you can’t.
8:47 pm
Hey Moran,
In reading Hastert’s statement, read the following:
Anyways, since you have such an astute political mind, I was wondering if you could enlighten me as to difference between something “of a sexual nature” and something that is “over-friendly”?
8:49 pm
The IM’s are the improper solitication—the emails (which the Rep leadership had were not). CREW had the evidence. How long did they have it.
Can you imagine if on the basis of an email asking for the boy’s welfare after Katrina and for a photo alone, the Reps had taken action against an elected Congressman? I see headlines accusing them of removing someone for presumed homosexual conduct on the basis of no evidence.
.
8:49 pm
My astute political mind tells me you and the rest of the blackhearted smear merchants are grasping at straws.
8:50 pm
Wow, this entire thread is interesting. Not a single repugnant is trying to defend Foley, yet my side (or so I thought) is defending their own history. People, freaks are freaks, be it Stubbs or Foley, quit trying to defend these people. My side has a lot to be ashamed of, I am just glad to see the right is actually doing something correct for a change. Democrats, quit trying to defend your party’s past actions, condemn it and move on.
8:52 pm
Clarice
I don’t see how this can be a fake scandal. Tom Foley has already resigned. He was clearly doing things he should not have been doing. If guilty, and it appears he is, he should get jail time. Maybe there is nothing he can be prosecuted for, but there should be.
The investigation needs to address Rep Foley, the House leadership, as well as the IM issue you raise. The bottom line is ANY ONE who is guilty of wrong doing in this case should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
8:53 pm
Spartakus
There are no federal laws respecting such conduct that I’m aware of.
Megan’s law deals only with the publication of names of those convicted of state laws respecting sexual offenses.
8:57 pm
Skinner
I don’t think any decent person would defend Foley. Also, if House Republican leaders engaged in a cover up, I don’t think any one would defend them either.
9:00 pm
“It is little more than what a fraternity might subject its pledges to.”
Let’s strap your ass to the waterboard and simulate drowning you. After 2 hours of it, you can tell us whether it’s torture or a fraternity prank.
9:07 pm
Clarice: Foley is a scum predator, so I’m happy he’s gone.
Right now, all the rest remains to be seen.
But I have a question; you quoted the DC law that says a “minor” is someone who has NOT attained the age of 16 years, correct?
I’m not trying to skate for Foley, but that’s curious.
Does that mean the DAY you actually reach 16 your are legal?
And, also, the IM’s I saw, quoted on the Drudge, the “boy” was telling Foley, that he was underage, NOT YET 18!
Could you just clarify that please?
Also, I’m making NO excuses for FOLEY, or Republican leadership; I’m still waiting to see who knew what, and when they knew it!
But, I find it interesting; my wife chats online, with friends, and chatrooms via IM, and I know she has no COPIES of her various IM chats!
How do you get copies of those things?
That would, actually indicate prior intent to GET Copies, correct?
Is there proof, in fact, that it WAS in fact, the same “boy” who Foley sent the emails too, as to whole was on the other end of those Chats?
Have you seen those NBC specials, where they trap all those Paedeophiles via the chatrooms, and get them to arrange meetings, and then show up?
IF those shows are correct, it’s not the chatting that is illegal, it’s the set-up and the actualy rendezvous that gets them over the line!
Is that correct?
Could it be they set Foley up for a “meet”, and he didn’t go, so they released the messages?
Just curious; it is an interesting incident.
Bottomline though, Foley is scum, and needs to be gone; he knew what he was doing, and in typical predator function, by being the sponor of the legislation, he was using his office to put himself in a position of being around more teenagers; that makes him Michael Jackson like in his sickness.
For the Republican leadership; I’ll wait a bit, but IF they knew, screw them too….
9:08 pm
“blackhearted smear merchants…grasping at straws.” Well, think of it as our Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, and I’m sure it’ll be a lot more palatable. After all, we only want the truth to be told about Rep. Foley and his enablers.
9:09 pm
After learning the facts about the Foley cover-up you are denying, from now on, I vote Democrat ALL THE WAY. Millions more will join me.
9:14 pm
Go steal someone else’s bandwidth…or get your own damn blog if you’re going copy and paste a 5,000 word piece of nonsense.
9:14 pm
Auntie
As I stated in my post, I am uncomfortable with water boarding. This one goes beyond extreme cold, loud noises, shaking, or belly slaps. I have not made up my mind on the interrogation bill yet.
With regards to water boarding, my understanding is our own fighter pilots have to endure it as part of survival training. Also during my college days, I remember something about a fraternity ritual where the pledge was subject to repeated dunking for long periods of time. This was probably not as bad as water boarding.
We have to find the right balance between trying to prevent “American Hirsohima” and respecting the rigts of POWs. Its not easy to find the right balance. I think the military does not allow its soldiers to use water boarding.
In any event, I suspect this bill go before the Supreme Court will eventually rule on the Constitionality of this. The balance between trying to prevent the next 911 and respecting the rights of POWs is a tough call.
In any event, what ever techniques we ultimately decide we can use the interogators need to be subjected to all of them as part of their training, in the same manner that military people are.
9:14 pm
Here is the entire Hastert statement—as you can see the emails are all they had and because of the parent’s wishes they were not allowed to see them:
On Friday, September 29, the Speaker directed his Chief of Staff and Outside Counsel to conduct an internal review to determine the facts and circumstances surrounding contact with the Office of the Speaker regarding the Congressman Mark Foley matter. The following is their preliminary report.
Email Exchange Between Congressman Foley and a Constituent of Congressman Alexander
In the fall of 2005 Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the Speaker’s Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page. He did not reveal the specific text of the email but expressed that he and Congressman Alexander were concerned about it.
Tim Kennedy immediately discussed the matter with his supervisor, Mike Stokke, Speaker Hastert’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Stokke directed Kennedy to ask Ted Van Der Meid, the Speaker’s in house Counsel, who the proper person was for Congressman Alexander to report a problem related to a former page. Ted Van Der Meid told Kennedy it was the Clerk of the House who should be notified as the responsible House Officer for the page program. Later that day Stokke met with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff. Once again the specific content of the email was not discussed. Stokke called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff. The Clerk and Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff then went to the Clerk’s Office to discuss the matter.
The Clerk asked to see the text of the email. Congressman Alexander’s office declined citing the fact that the family wished to maintain as much privacy as possible and simply wanted the contact to stop. The Clerk asked if the email exchange was of a sexual nature and was assured it was not. Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff characterized the email exchange as over-friendly.
The Clerk then contacted Congressman Shimkus, the Chairman of the Page Board to request an immediate meeting. It appears he also notified Van Der Meid that he had received the complaint and was taking action. This is entirely consistent with what he would normally expect to occur as he was the Speaker’s Office liaison with the Clerk’s Office.
The Clerk and Congressman Shimkus met and then immediately met with Foley to discuss the matter. They asked Foley about the email. Congressman Shimkus and the Clerk made it clear that to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and at the request of the parents, Congressman Foley was to immediately cease any communication with the young man.
The Clerk recalls that later that day he encountered Van Der Meid on the House floor and reported to him that he and Shimkus personally had spoken to Foley and had taken corrective action.
Mindful of the sensitivity to the parent’s wishes to protect their child’s privacy and believing that they had promptly reported what they knew to the proper authorities Kennedy, Van Der Meid and Stokke did not discuss the matter with others in the Speaker’s Office.
Congressman Tom Reynolds in a statement issued today indicates that many months later, in the spring of 2006, he was approached by Congressman Alexander who mentioned the Foley issue from the previous fall. During a meeting with the Speaker he says he noted the issue which had been raised by Alexander and told the Speaker that an investigation was conducted by the Clerk of the House and Shimkus. While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynold’s recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution.
Sexually Explicit Instant Message Transcript
No one in the Speaker’s Office was made aware of the sexually explicit text messages which press reports suggest had been directed to another individual until they were revealed in the press and on the internet this week. In fact, no one was ever made aware of any sexually explicit email or text messages at any time.
9:19 pm
Hastert is probably wrestling with the issue himself.
9:21 pm
Dale, as I read the D.C. the day a person becomes 16 he is not a “child” for the purposes of the sex crimes laws here.
I expect that figure is not unusual.
9:38 pm
Amen to Auntie Occident (109).
We got through the Civil War (970000 dead) and WW2 (62 million worldwide) without making torture legal, without suspending habeas corpus, and without the kind of free-floating panic that now seems to possess conservatives.
Correcting for population size then and now, the Civil War dead is equivalent to NINE MILLION today, or three thousand 911s! Yet we came out of that war with a new respect for human dignity (albeit imperfect).
Are we coming out of this GWOT better than we went in? Or are we descending into paranoia, division, and lawlessness? That’s the choice we have to make. Is a little safety REALLY worth losing our sense of morality?
If you think it is, I call that cowardice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
9:39 pm
Front page of tomorrow’s Sunday NY Times:
G.O.P. Leaders Knew In Late ‘05 of E-Mail
Foleygate has just swallowed up the Republican Congressional leadership.
G’nite apologists!
http://www.nytimes.com
You really can’t read very well can you?
The information contained in that article is exactly the same information we have been discussing here.
1. Foley sent emails to a kid in LA asking about his well being after Katrina and asked for a picture.
2. The emails had nothing whatsoever to do with the smutty IM’s he sent to other pages.
3. The GOP leadership investigated at the time and told him to break off the email correspondence after Foley assured them it was a “mentor thing.”
4. Haster found out a few months later and wanted to see the emails but the parents of the boy refused out of privacy concerns.
5. Liberals heads explode because they can’t grasp the idea that we are talking about two separate issues here and like 12 year old girls at a slumber party jump to conclusions and formulate conspiracy theories were – so far – none exist.
9:39 pm
Oh, and for you folks who say Foley didn’t do anything illegal… wellity wellity wellity.
“one of the laws which Mark Foley appears to have violated is the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006” which, among other things, increases penalties for adults who use the Internet to discuss or solicit sexual acts with “minors” (defined as an “individual who has not attained the age of 18 years”).”
This law makes it illegal to even discuss sexual matters with a minor. Asking a sixteen year old his favorite masturbation technique probably falls under this particular clause. Thanks for playing.
9:41 pm
“I will happily join you in hanging by their toes the entire Republican leadership if it turns out that they knew more than what is reported here and failed to do anything.”
Thanks. I look forward to that moment.
9:46 pm
“After you call me a moron?”
I’m sorry; did I misspell your name? How careless of me. It’s Moran, isn’t it? An unfortunate mistake. Please forgive. Now, about that answer…
9:50 pm
Auntis Occident We don’t have ex post facto laws to punish under 2006 legislation conduct which occurred in 2003.
9:51 pm
Maybe Hastert was so busy working on his next real estate project that he “honestly” forgot that someone told him there was sexual predator running around in his cockus.
9:54 pm
Foul-mouthed Auntie Occident is just foul-mouthed Dave, I think. I agree with him on some of the issues, but his tone is repugnant.
Why so angry, Dave?
9:54 pm
“3. The GOP leadership investigated at the time and told him to break off the email correspondence after Foley assured them it was a “mentor thing.—
Riiiight. They investigated.
Hastert’s statement says that the Clerk of the House Board and Hastert’s office “investigated” Foley’s conduct without even insisting on seeing the emails that Foley sent. We can visualize the brutal interrogation: “Say Mark, did you send any inappropriate e-mails to a sixteen year old boy?” “Er, ah, nope.” “Ah! Good then. Golf tomorrow as usual?”
10:04 pm
[...] Today there’s considerable rib-nudging activity on the Left. As much as we all like to see hypocrisy outed, this isn’t something to joke about. Some on the Right are facing up to what happened, but others sniff about a setup or engage in some weird denial of the denials. I suggest it would be more helpful if everyone resolved to notice, acknowledge, and act upon inappropriate behavior between adults and children and not ignore it or cover it up. This doesn’t mean engaging in vigilante witch hunts; just stop the denial. [...]
10:05 pm
Poster of missive #121: I think you need to pull Mr. Foley’s underwear off
your head and read the NY Times article one more time.
The GOP Congressional leadership now stands accused of abetting the actions
of a known pedophile (that is simply a lie. there is not one shred of evidence for that whatsoever. you know it is a lie. He was not a “known” pedophile to anyone. And I am sick of you. You’re banned)) who freely operated within their ranks. All the unctuous
hair-splitting in the world will hardly distract the American public from the
obvious abrogation of the ethical responsibilities of these self-proclaimed
guardians of the national morality.
Remember, parse rhymes with arse. And yours is hanging out like a big old
shiny harvest moon.
10:06 pm
Bobby
During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus for a time. During WWII the government engaged in domestic spying and Japanese were interned. I’m not saying these things were the right thing to do. Any intrusions on civil liberties are tame today compared with WWII.
I don’t sense any free floating panic. What I do sense is many Americans including those in the leadership ranks of the Republican and Democratic parties have yet to fully come to grips with the size and the scope of the enemy.
10:07 pm
Auntie Occident, the law does not say what you say it does. In any event the only sexual language is in the 2003 IMs and since that occurred three years before the passage of the Adam Walsh laws and since the Constitution forbids ex post facto laws, your argument is as fallacious as the rest of your obnoxious posts.
10:07 pm
“with IQ’s smaller than their penis”
I assume you meant this to be sardonic irony, right?
A backhanded comment regarding Foley, perhaps?
Or is this really indignation and defensiveness on behalf of a pedophile? (I won’t emphasize ‘homosexual’ before pedophile b/c I really don’t care, but I suspect that you do).
The MOST damning of all statements was contained in Rep Smirkus’ response:
“Nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact with this former House Page to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. We also advised him to be especially mindful of his conduct with respect to current and former House Pages, and he assured us he would do so.”
It seems more than a bit odd that a concerned mentor would be “ordered” to “cease all contact” if he was doing the Lord’s work and Rep. Smirkus found nothing wrong or fishy.
You see, in his haste to make denials, he made an admission. That’s what trips up 99.9% of all criminal defendants to talk to the police. That’s a genuine admission that he found the contact and conduct by Rep. Foley unacceptable (to what degree Smirkus knew is between him and God, and he can ask forgiveness from Him). There is no other conclusion that supports that statement (and yes, an admission against interest is evidence: its an excpetion to the hearsay rule… look it up). No jumping to conclusions about it.
Mr. Moran, I would deep-6 Rep. Foley to the Libby/Abramoff/Burns/Ney/Brownie/Cunningham/The Hammer et. al. crowd of pretender/opportunist-Repubs, and focus on issues pressing the country that the big “R’s” have the answers to. Defending a pedophile is unbecoming and lowers yourself to the above-listed crowd’s level.
Are you implying that I’m defending Foley? If I were you I would attend a remedial reading course as soon as possible. It is evident that the information enters your brain and dribbles out your ears before you can assimilate its meaning.
The “admission” (if you knew anything about the Hill) is that after the last page scandal, any contact outside of normal Congressional business was considered “inappropriate.” Hence, the Shimkus statement reflects his concerns in that regard.
10:08 pm
Rick, sweetie, why don’t you leave the fact to peopl who can handle them?
I hardly think a sockpuppet like Lambchop Greenwald has the corner on anything, much less anything factual. He’s a rank hysteric of the first order and I’m not interested in Foley’s crimes except that they will get him into prison and have as a cellmate a great big bald headed neo-nazi.
10:10 pm
Salty
I’ve said over and over again, if any of the accused Republicans are proven guilty of aiding and abetting a pedophile they should go to jail. At least I think your post was directed at me. You will get no defense of this behavior from me.
10:11 pm
Clarice:
Auntie won’t be joining us anymore.
Neither will Salt Party Snax.
Or two or three others who have already been banned because their grasp of the English language is limited to the 7 words you can’t say on TV (or is it 3 or 4 now?)
10:22 pm
Sure. If thye disagree with you, the safest thing do to is to apply the muzzle. Or the ball gag.
My blog, shithead. Eat me.
10:37 pm
Ricky, ricky, ricky.
Fine, I won’t swear, but let me ask again.
How well do you know Kierkegaard and Proust?
I’m quite prepared to discuss them, though I’ll admit I’m not as versed in Proust as I am Soren. And I’m quite willing to swear, tho apparently only serious rightwingers have the judgment necessary to decide when vulgarity is appropriate.
11:00 pm
[...] UPDATE II: I’m not alone in my suspicions. Rick Moran writes: “My good friend and fellow American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman left a comment that deserves to be elevated for greater readability. It is, something of an eye popper: [...]
11:03 pm
Auntie, we’ve seen the emails. They are not sexually explicit. Overly friendly, yes. But not solicitations nor sexual.
I have a correction to make—It is obvious to me that CREW and ABC coordinated the release of the emails and the story. ABC does not say where it got the steamier IM’s. I had assumed those were in CREW’s hands, too, but cannot find them on their site.
Perhaps they didn’t provide them to ABC.
OTOH I wouldn’t be surprised to find out they did.
I do not see how anyone except the recipient or someone with access to Foley’s computer could have gotten those.
I think this was a set up at worst or someone sat on this dmaaging information for political purposes at best.
11:27 pm
yes clarice I always request a photo when I ask after a teenage acquaintance’s health. You never know when they lying to you, don’t you know.
(clapping hands and jumpin up and down) Ohhh, let’s all be obtuse together…
11:58 pm
Here is a release from the editor of the St Pete paper:
An editor’s note from the St. Petersburg Times, the first news outlet
to
evidently receive the email exchange between Mr. Foley and a former
page
from Louisiana.
A Note From the Editors
There still seems to be some confusion about the order of events
related to
our coverage of Rep. Mark Foley and his email exchanges with teenagers
he
met through the congressional page program. Let me try to clear this
up.
In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange
Foley
had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later
got
them,too. The conversation in those emails was friendly chit-chat.
Foley
asked the boy about how he had come through Hurricane Katrina and about
the
boy’s upcoming birthday. In one of those emails, Foley casually asked
the
teen to send him a “pic” of himself. Also among those emails was the
page’s
exchange with a congressional staffer in the office of Rep. Alexander,
who
had been the teen’s sponsor in the page program. The teen shared his
exchange he’d had with Foley and asked the staffer if she thought Foley
was
out of bounds.
There was nothing overtly sexual in the emails, but we assigned two
reporters to find out more. We found the Louisiana page and talked with
him.
He told us Foley’s request for a photo made him uncomfortable so he
never
responded, but both he and his parents made clear we could not use his
name
if we wrote a story. We also found another page who was willing to go
on the
record, but his experience with Foley was different. He said Foley did
send
a few emails but never said anything in them that he found
inappropriate. We
tried to find other pages but had no luck. We spoke with Rep.
Alexander, who
said the boy’s family didn’t want it pursued, and Foley, who insisted
he was
merely trying to be friendly and never wanted to make the page
uncomfortable.
So, what we had was a set of emails between Foley and a teenager, who
wouldn’t go on the record about how those emails made him feel. As we
said
in today’s paper, our policy is that we don’t make accusations against
people using unnamed sources. And given the seriousness of what would
be
implied in a story, it was critical that we have complete confidence in
our
sourcing. After much discussion among top editors at the paper, we
concluded
that the information we had on Foley last November didn’t meet our
standard
for publication. Evidently, other news organizations felt the same way.
Since that time, we revisited the question more than once, but never
learned
anything that changed our position. The Louisiana boy’s emails broke
into
the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them
online.
Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News
followed suit, with the addition of one new fact: Foley’s Democratic
opponent, Tim Mahoney, was on the record about the Louisiana boy’s
emails
and was calling for an investigation. That’s when we wrote our first
story,
for Friday’s papers.
After ABC News broke the story on its website, someone contacted ABC
and
provided a detailed email exchange between Foley and at least one other
page
that was far different from what we had seen before. This was overtly
sexual, not something Foley could dismiss as misinterpreted
friendliness.
That’s what drove Foley to resign on Friday.
I hope this helps clarify a bit about what we knew and when we knew it.
Scott Montgomery
Government & Politics Editor
###
12:12 am
The Reps couldn’t investigate it because the kid’s parents insisted they wanted to protect his privacy. He then gave it to at least one paper (we don’t know where the others got it ) but couldn’t run it because he wouldn’t let the use his name.
And then it mysteriously shows up on a blog, at CREW and at ABC?
Got it.
12:14 am
Democrats Want To Turn Foley Into A Campaign Issue
The Democrats want to turn the whole Foley mess into a campaign issue, which isn't surprising given that the last few weeks of intensive debate over national security and the war on terror has resulted in resurgent approval numbers for both Republ…
12:28 am
The Republican house leadership does not answer to one set of parents, they answer to the American people, they answer to the laws of this country and they should answer to the God and morals that they all seem so keen on boasting about almost everytime they are on t.v.
Got that.
Now lets all gather round for disingenuity lessons. Clarice will be leading the lesson.
12:34 am
I’m a Democrat, and I don’t think Foley should be a campaign issue. On the contrary, I think sex scandals and issues of ANY kind (predatorgate, Monica, gay marriage, etc.) are a distraction from MUCH more important issues, such as war, massive deficits, borrowing from China to invade Iraq, unreliable and/or manipulated intelligence, media laziness, habeas corpus, torture, the Geneva Convention, passing on huge debts to our children, and…. I could go on and on.
These are all bigger issues than what somebody wrote someone else in an IM or e-mail, even if Foley truly IS a sexual predator. Even if Hastert is a bigger one. Even if everybody in the Republican congress is a sexual predator, THERE ARE BIGGER ISSUES.
12:51 am
Foley – not a big issue for me, just on what he did, as creepy as it was.
But if the GOP leadership allowed him to stay in the position he was in? Damn right, that’s an issue. And before RWers injury themselves sulking, if you could stop making yourselves into victims, you might remember all the demonizing your side has done for the last 15 years or so. And I so thought you really were upset about Clinton’s morals.
In short, that belaboring of a lie that liberals and Democrats are Godless, without morals and terrorist lovers has been obnoxious. And I’m not talking about bloggers. I’m talking millions-of- dollars-making pundits and Republicans, at the very top of the party.
If it bites you all on the arse, count me on one of the first to celebrate.
As is usual when TBogg links here, the knuckledraggers with IQ’s smaller than their penis length swarm my site and spit vulgarity in the comments section with a regularity that makes me think they are either under 10 years of age or have the same familiarity with the English language than they do with the ideas of Proust or Kierkegaard – or Donald Duck for that matter.
I will brook no vulgarity (save mine) in the comments. If that doesn’t sit well with you, eat me.
I’m thinking you need a charm school review, yourself.
1:11 am
B. Poster said (
“During the Civil War Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus for a time…
I don’t sense any free floating panic. What I do sense is many Americans including those in the leadership ranks of the Republican and Democratic parties have yet to fully come to grips with the size and the scope of the enemy.”
Fair enough; maybe we haven’t come to grips with it. Maybe it’s a problem that could equal three thousand 911s, eventually. Nine million dead. That sounds bad. That is bad. It’s 3% of the US population! Omigod!
But is it worse than giving up the principles we fought for? I don’t think so. Is it worth making the same mistakes we made in WW2, now that we know better? I don’t think so.
But maybe it is. Maybe the problem is as big as neocons think. Maybe it’s far bigger.
In that case, shouldn’t we attack the problem intelligently, steadfastly, in the right places, at the right times, with intelligence we can trust? I say again (see #62), Ronald Reagan didn’t win the cold war by recklessly attacking the enemy. He won it by responding to individual threats in responsible fashion.
(MOSTLY. His Iran-Contra scandal involved giving Iran some of the weapons that we’re worried about today. And he gave Saddam some help, too. But nobody’s perfect, I guess.)
1:11 am
Forgetting Foley and his predeliction for barely legal flesh, for the moment, DrMajorBob is a brick short of a load if he relegates child molestation and sexual assault to the bottom of the heap of issues.
1:26 am
Lesley 146:
“DrMajorBob is a brick short of a load if he relegates child molestation and sexual assault to the bottom of the heap of issues.”
Not the bottom of the heap, no. Below the others I mentioned, yes.
Fighting the wrong war at the wrong time, and doing it on borrowed money (first time EVER that we’ve cut taxes during a war) could lead to the end of our financial independence. We’re borrowing half a trillion dollars (and counting) to support the war in Iraq. Borrowing it. Borrowing it, hoping we can keep on borrowing to turn over the debt payments. Borrowing it from China and the Saudis, among others. The debt grows, the interest payments grow, and foreigners buy those debts. All they have to do is stop, and interest rates will skyrocket, plunging us into another Great Depression, or something like it.
If every congressman, Rep or Dem, has a boy-Monica under the desk, that is NOT the biggest thing we have to worry about. Not even close.
1:35 am
[...] But you know what may be much more interesting to come out of this? The fact that a MSM outfit knew of these emails and sat on them: (via Rightwing Nuthouse) My good friend and fellow American Thinker contributor Clarice Feldman left a comment that deserves to be elevated for greater readability. It is, something of an eye popper: Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this. [...]
1:57 am
Wriggle ‘round all you want about the emails… You haven’t mentioned the IM’s. Try to argue that those might be appropriate (there is not one person on this thread who has argued those IM’s are appropriate. NOT ONE. Are you drunk? Or just incredibly stupid?). Dude, your boys just got busted for the same thing the Catholic leadership did: covering for a pedophile (Stupid, there is not one scintilla of evidence that what you just wrote is true). Deal with it. Admit it. Or at least stop your pathetic thrashing around. (I’ll admit it when there’s more than wishful thinking from a bunch of pathetic dunderheads.)
1:58 am
DrMajorBob
I find myself in agreement with what you wrote. We are going to need to be more intellegent. Specifically concerning Iraq I think we should not have ivaded when we did. If we were going to do it, we should have used far more troops than we did. With that said about thirty nations evaluated the threat and agreed with us that it needed to be done and agreed to assist us in some way. Also, Kuwait and Jordan allowed the use of their territory to launch the invastion.
As I point out elsewhere, due to the domestic political situation the United States will be withdrawing in masse from Iraq very soon. By July of 2007 all that will be left there will be about 10,000 or so mostly special ops forces who will be stationed in Kurdistan. These will be backed up by air support and will be prepared to intervene in Iraq to try and prevent the formation of terrorist bases. An intellegent use of the forces this will free up will be to commit them to Afghanistan. In addition the US should substantially increase the size of its military. These forces could be used in Afghanistan. Lets take care of the situation in Afghanistan. You are spot on that we will need to be more intellegent in how we are doing this.
I agree with you that we don’t want to make the same mistakes that we made during WWII with internment. Right now we are no where a situation where something like that would happen nor are we any where near the harsh interrogation techniques sometimes used in some past wars. With that said some of the things we are doing right now make me uncomfortable. This is part of the soul searching we do that our enemies do not do.
Lesley
Former Rep Foley and his collagues should be investgted thouroghly and they will be, however, DrMajorBob is correct. The issues he mentions are for more important than the Foley situation. Rep Foley and and any one who covered for him should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, however, it should not be a campaign issue. It should be about bringing a pervert and anyone who covered for him to justice. Actually former rep Foley and anyone who covered for him should be ashamed of themselves not only for their twisted behaviour but they have distracted the country at a very serious time.
1:59 am
First, my IQ and penis size aren’t meaningfully related – my brains are elsewhere located. Second, Proust is the last refuge of soundrels – everyone goes to bed early after not more than five pages along Swann’s Way.
You’re defending a pedophile, and a group of utterly venal men who closed ranks about said pedophile to protect their own political interests. Which is sad and somewhat pathetic, though the logical conclusion of a pathologica need to fit in with the ideology of he group.
Just because he and his defenders are part of your political party doesn’t mean you have to approve of them and their doings. You’re actually free to voice an opinon that isn’t toeing the party line.
2:07 am
DrMajorBob (147)
You are right. We have never tried to fight a major war while cutting taxes at the same time. The bottome line is you are not going to be able to fight a war on multiple fronts, cut taxes, and run a quasi wel-fare state all at the same time. We are borrowing at an incredible rate. This needs to stop.
I suggest suspending the tas cuts, instituting a draft, amd placing the country on a war footing like in WWII. The best use of the troops we add to the military would be for border seccurity or for Afghanistan. As long as it is consistent with American national security, I would like to commit more troops to Iraq as well but at this stage I’m not sure a massive commitment of troops to Iraq is in our national security interests.
6:10 am
Well, I just ended up on this site after trying to findout a bit more about this whole Foley thing. I was tring to get an honest perspective from both sides. While I find the original post interesting, I was dissapointed to see that the author (Mr. Moran) responded to a slew of reasonable questions with vitriol, an impressive amount of name calling, and denials that simply accused the commenter of not coming to the the author’s conclusions. A) Is this regularly how someone who claims to have been involved in many campaigns typically responds to the moslty legitimate questions posed by his reader and B) anyone know where I can find a more reasoned response from the right?
Thanks,
CC
7:12 am
Dem hypocrisy (gasp!) in Mark Foley case.
Apparently, Denny Hastert knew a year ago that Foley was a SICK DEGENERATE PEDO AND COVERED IT UP LIKE A CATHOLIC BISHOP!! [Hyperbole added. -cd] Or, no he actually didn’t.
7:28 am
As this is one of the very few rightwing nut job sites that allow comments i feel almost as if i should be kind so as not to cause the blog writer to shut off comments but what the hell, you guys are enabling perversion and are portraying yourselves as truly frightening hypocrites.
have you no shame?
the whole republican leadership is gay and it explains why aipac has such influence, they were probably really easy to setup for blackmail. of course now i wonder about the rollover dems as well
7:45 am
Breaking: Michael Jackson to replace Mehlman as RNC chief; announces new “No Child’s Behind Left” program. Developing . . .
7:53 am
How do we know the IM’s are genuine?
7:58 am
So what if these allegations had sit and came out a suspicious time?
So what, are you saying that this is reason to put the genie back in the bottle, give Foley back his seat and move on to let him fall back into his predation? One would think that the blow to his life would wake the man up and he would get some up help and move on to age appropriate relationships.
It appears that the Rep were covering for Foley, if not purposely then at the very, very least looking the other way after having knowledge of rumors, open secrets whatever. I personally go for the on purpose but hey maybe some of the leadership were cleaner than that it was only incompetence. Do we let this slide because of the suspicious timing? I can not recall the endless times that Republicans crowed about personal responsibility, accountability etc over the past twenty years. That is the issue, why can’t the supposed leadership of this party take some responsibility.
Now, lets all get in a circle…good, now give your neighbor a swift kick to shin so that we can all be vicitms.
7:59 am
To all the moonbats posting all this crap, there is proof that news outlets had this and they held it so it’d come out just before an election, but the democrats have NO MORAL leg to stand on, they have barney frank’s who ran a prositution ring outta his basement, yet that O.K. the dems voted him back in, all your comments have as much credibility as a buzzard refusing fresh roadkill on the highway.
Foley is gone, he resigned as he should have, he was a sleaze, but Conservatives resign, dems don’t, what about jefferson from La., hiss ass should be in jail, I could name other instances but yall seem to be obsessed with Foley.
I wanta see the Abscam issue with Murtha ON TAPE taking money $$$$$$$ go to TheAmericanThinker.com ….. this won’t come out cuz the enabaling lame stream press is in full battle mode now to protect the dems …...WHAT A DOUBLE STANDARD.
8:03 am
Forgot to mention Rick, seems this discussion has been highjacked by kos and the rest of the lefty bloggers, at lease they can get in here, when I go to a left blog my comment is blocked or I get a VILE, NASTY COMMENT back via email.
8:14 am
Wow, a predatory man in a position of power, preying on (as someone said early in this thread) “teenagers”. If he’s a Republican, draw him and quarter him and put his head on a pike.
If he’s a Democrat, close ranks around him and have his wife blame a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Yep, business as usual.
The congressman is a sick man and did the right thing. Did the serial adulterer-in-chief?
And B.Poster #154, regarding fighting a war while cutting taxes, it really helps if the tax cut actually causes revenue to the Treasury jump. Continuing the prosecution of an unfinished war while revenue collected was double-digits lower than it is – that would have been irresponsible.
9:17 am
“The next time you leave a comment without reading the post I will delete it.”
What made you think the post wasn’t read? Time and again right wingers are accused of gagging free speech, you displayed similar traits with that statement.
Can’t stand opinions not identical to yours.
Threatening the use and the actual use of power to stifle free speech.
Abusing a position of privilege.
Call a spade a spade, Foley behavior should have resulted in a deeper investigation by the house republican leadership. From all reports, his past had been dodged by accusations of being gay so his mentoring and page boy well being check-up excuses should not have held water with the house republican leadership who must be aware of his background else they are incompetent.
If America does not give anyone with a terrorist profile the benefit of doubt if he caught checking out an airport or a mall, then it is laughable to claim Foley’s explanations were accepted off hand.
If you think democrats are dreamers then they are not the only one.
WHY WAS THE SOLE DEMOCRAT ON THE PAGE BOARD KEPT IN THE DARK WHILE EVERYONE ELSE KNEW WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED?
Oh, shut up about “stifling” free speech. There are 150 godamn comments on this post that make you a liar. The person in question visits this site and accuses me of making exactly the opposite arguments that are made simply because he assumes I toe the Republican line on everything. He never bothers to read what I write and leaves links that I post in the body of the article. It is not “stifling” free speech to gag an idiot.
9:34 am
I am, as usual when reading the lefty’s diatribes, stunned at the mass ignorance and lack of critical thinking (one would think I would be used to it by now, however, I have difficulty accepting such about a significant proportion of the United States population – I keep hoping it is all a big joke and one day the left will take out half page ads in all the major newspapers and say, “Just kidding, we aren’t that devoid of common sense, historical perspective and critical thinking skills.” Then we can all just go on with our lives with just a few fringe cases on both sides we all agree to ignore.)
As to comments about those on the right defending Foley, I have yet to see it. I am sure that there are some rabid fringe members who are that morally bankrupt and intellectually stunted who are doing so, however, every conservative site I have visited has definitively condemned Foley, supported his resignation and demanded a full investigation leading to prosecution where legally appropriate and possible.
As to the leadership (on both sides), as has been said time and time again, there is no public information indicating that they had enough evidence of Foley’s immoral acts to take action against him. Even the MSM, typically gleeful to expose and condemn GOP members of wrong doing, could not find enough evidence to even publish a story on the issue. Besides Foley, the real criminals in this matter are those who did have evidence (ie the released IMs) sufficient to at least force his removal from Congress and, if it is the case, withheld the information until it was politically adventageous to release it. Such information should have immediately been turned over to authorities and Foley should have, as he was, been forced to resign immediately. I am incensed to think that someone would have proof of sexual predation and not immediately, regardless of political calculation, turn that information over to authorities. That my friends, is sick, sick, sick! Nearly as sick as what Foley has done.
As to how this thread has turned to Iraq in any form, it is mind boggling. It seems that any time, whether online or IRL, when one speaks to a Dem, he/she finds some way to bring up Iraq regardless of relevence to the discussion at hand. Typically the comments show gross lack of or a total misunderstanding of, American history and the Unites States military. The government school system (run by the left by the way) has done it’s job well in dumbing down the citizenry to accept any crackpot theory or ideology from the left. Our military has around 2.5 million active and reserve members defending us. We are currently using about 10% of this strength actively in the middle east. We are not in imminent need of a draft. We are not in imminent danger of being wiped out by China or Russia. We have the second largest military in the world, trailing China by about 500,000 total troops. Our military is by no means perfect and the leadership in some areas is abyssmal (I would do a happy dance if Don Rumsfield were fired or resigned). However, I am confident that if at some point, the American people (and their elected representatives) removed their craniums from their anal cavities long enough to understand that winning a war is not the same as suing for peace, we have the capacity to protect our borders and eliminate the majority of threats against our continued life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
9:43 am
Hey looky here, the cut and run crowd must have missed last weeks UN report to the UNSC that al Qaeda is in Iraq, Bush flypaper strategy is working, and al Qaeda is spent. I wonder how this got overlooked.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/456354p-384073c.html
I note how much agreement there is with the UN report and the NIE, the parts the NYTimes didn’t print.
If democrats have a plan other than cut and run, haven’t heard it, unless it is Murtha’s daffy redeployment half way around the world to the Pacific Ocean. I wonder, is Murtha sane?
It’s all about sex, move on, it’s Foley’s personal life.
9:47 am
[...] Read what Rick Moran has to say about the ruckus surrounding the Foley matter. Pay particular attention to the second update. Read AllahPundit as well. Reportedly the St Pete Times had the same information in August 2005 and wrote nothing about it either, apparently because the emails do not constitute illegal conduct, they are just creepy, and the boy’s parents did not wish to pursue this. [...]
10:02 am
bill take off the blinders dude. how much was spent trying to bring clinton down for his personal sex life.
as far as flypaper goes you can’t get much more callous than than that statement, kill them over there eh! if anybody thinks that bush can bring real democracy to iraq they are nuts. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN and once the troops leave even in twenty years the place will fall into civil war, name a occupying nation that still governs over a occupied nation. it has never happened.
the best solution is to get cheney, bush etal before a war crimes tribunal. it is the only logical choice left, they invaded for oil and to bring profits for halliburton and they lied about thier reasons and covered up thier true motives to kill american kids.
10:12 am
LOL, the republican sympathizers on this thread are a real laugh. They are obtuse, disingenuous, play the victim card, oh woe is me!
You just don’t get it. The only standard relevant to the current situation is the Repubican one. They have held power in the Presidency, and the Congress for the last six years. They has been no Democratic standard since Clinton left office, not that his was a shining example of leadership. The problem is not the double standard, it is that the Republicans can’t live up to their own standards.
The argument that the media has a double standard is bull too because the media participated in the digging up every bit of dirt on the Clintons just like they are with Foley and the House leadership.
Yes, it was terribly unfair when a sitting President had an affair with an adult female intern. It is terribly unfair that he lied about it and did not resign. It is terribly unfair hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to find something on Clinton and to try to impeach him. Terribly Terribly unfair that after all was said and done the only that could be pinned on him was that he lied about a blow job.
So now it is only fair that a 52 year old man trolling for teenage Pages on IM and via email gets a pass and that the house leadership who had knowledge of this and did nothing even though their standards are supposedly higher than those Godless liberals should get one too. Woe is me!
(This in no way resembles what actually happened. What the leadership knew was that he had exchanged emails with a former page – not one sexual reference contained therein. Your description is so wildly exaggerated one must assume you know what you are doing and are therefore deliberately lying – that’s a typical godless liberal for ya).
All together now Foley sympathizers, remember to kick you neighbor in the shin so that you can feel vicitmized and then we will have Clarice or someone lead us off with a rousing version of Cumbaya.
Oh and it does not matter whether a commenter on this blog is an idiot or not. This is as far as I know Moran’s private blog, he is not the government and can ban or delete who or what he wants for whatever reason he wants.
10:24 am
Well, Peter, “kill them over there” is not callous and it has essentially been the strategy of the US military since WWII and to an extent before that. It is called projection of force. Why do you think we have kept so many troops stationed all over the world since 1945? We (most of us) understand that it is preferable to fight the enemy on their territory and destroy their infrastructure rather than fight them here.
And as to oil, we don’t need the middle east’s oil. We have plenty of oil in the US, however, the environutcase movement has been successful in preventing it from being extracted.
10:36 am
The world is upside down. DNC operatives, aka CREW, sit on information that would revela a potential child molester for political gain. For a stinking “October Surprise”.
Why aren’t they, those who sat back and did nothing with the chance that a child might be harmed, being heaped with scorn? I thought Kos and his ilk, the nutroots, were for the people first. Nope, it’s all about getting power and they don’t give a damn weho gets hurt. Even children.
10:44 am
Now Rep. Shinkus is saying that both he and the CLerk of the HOuse saw the e-mails in question. Yet Hastert says they didn’t. Who are we to believe? And better yet, how are we going to pin this one on the press and their suspicious timing? On that front it looks like CREW was trying to get someone to authenticate the e-mails and IM’s quite a while ago…of course they probably timed that because they know how slow Republican-style bureacracy operates and timed their release months ago to precisely coincide with a release on Friday, September 29th.
11:06 am
[...] Now that we’ve dispensed with that, go read this post at Moran’s and pay special attention to Update II. Who was ABC’s source for those e-mails? And for how long, exactly, was that source sitting on them while filthy Mark Foley was busy ogling the pages? [...]
11:10 am
[...] There is something even sicker than Mark Foley’s online sexual advances against a minor. It is CREW’S decision to make the knowledge of this an October Surprise. Which Rick Moran hints at in his Update II. [...]
11:53 am
Republican Leadership Knew Something About Foley Scandal Months Ago
At this point, the claim is that House leadership only saw less-incriminiating emails, not enough to set off serious alarm bells. Which makes some amount of sense; purely as a crass political calculation, if they knew the extent of this,...
12:28 pm
So you edit italicsized into other people’s comments?
And this is preferable to replying with attribution in your own beige box why exactly?
2:39 pm
[...] Did Hastert do enough? In bizarro world, where he and Foley are both Democrats, yes. In our world — no, not nearly enough! To be clear: if it turns out that Hastert or Boehner or whoever else knew about the sexual e-mails or knew that Foley had a history of being “overfriendly†with pages and chose not to investigate that, they’re done. But if this was the first they’d heard of it, then I think it’s time to send the firing squad home. High moral dudgeon over child abuse is a lovely thing, but we’ve got to be a little fair here. Now that we’ve dispensed with that, go read this post at Moran’s and pay special attention to Update II. Who was ABC’s source for those e-mails? And for those e-mails? And for how long, exactly, was that source sitting on them while filthy Mark Foley was busy ogling the pages? [...]
2:51 pm
What Foley did is not a left/right issue it is a right/wrong issue.
Torture is not a left/right issue it is a right/wrong issue.
Most issues are not left/right. I do not analyze problems and then ask whether my conclusion leans left or leans right. Who cares? Too many people wait until a leader of some type states his or her case and then assimilate the conclusion.
When it comes to making personal decisions right/left simply are not relevant. If a person chooses to label a decision made by others as left or right it has no impact on their choices because the choices are personal.
Left/right has become a means of demonizing and belittling a supposed opponent’s arguments, but it does not address the validity of the arguments.
Validity and integrity are the important factors with regard to ideas, less than that is merely an opinion that carries no more weight than a child’s fairy tale.
Left/right thinking is like black/white thinking, both concepts are inadequate to making sound decisions.
3:16 pm
...considerable media speculation…
Since we’re just making shit up here, I’ll speculate this was a honeypot trap setup by Chuck Schumer’s black bag crew with the full knowledge of the DNC leadership and that a complete electronic forensic investigation will implicate Bill Clinton, Mother Theresa, Hugo Chavez, Superman and the Pope.
4:13 pm
Wow. There’s so much idiocy on both sides of this, it’s diffcult to know where to begin. There is an allegation of a crime by a high-ranking government official. That’s all there is. Let’s save the Get Out Of Jail Free card and the gallows until there’s proof of innocence or guilt. If these allegations turn out to be true, and there was a crime and subsequent coverup, punishment must be severe. And we all know what happens to pederasts in prison…
4:28 pm
Also, your casual dismission of the content of these e-mails as innocent is really just flat out lying. Unless you consider the following an innocent inquiry as to a young man’s health and well-being:
(The “emails” everyone except you and the densest of the lefties are talking about inquire as to the young man’s well being following Katirina and asks for a picture.
What you are quoting are from IM’s – Instant Messages – and have nothing whatsoever to do with what I and the 99% of people with more intelligence than a cofee table are talking about. There are two separate incidents; one known to the House leadership involving a former page and 3 emails sent by Foley; and another track involving dozens of dirty IM’s that no one else knew about until they magically appeared courtesy of a left wing group associated with the Wilson-Plame lawsuit. Your reading comprehension being that of the aforementioned coffee table, you are forgiven for calling me a liar although you appear not to have been dusted in quite a while)
um so a big buldge
gram the one eyed snake
grab
get a ruler and measure it for me
thats a great size
cool hope se (the young man’s mother) didnt see any thing
I don’t ever remember asking anyone I know to grab their penis and measure it for me while casually asking how it’s going. Maybe that’s customary where you come from, but seems sexually charged and far from innocent to me.
5:14 pm
Wow, amazing counterargument. Emails, IM’s, what’s the difference? The man was clearly doing something he knew was inapropriate. When your argument comes down to semantics, you lose.
No. You accused me of being a liar because you were to dense to understand that I was dismissing the emails not the IM’s – a big difference in the context of the story, nitwit.
And the day I lose to a brainless twit like you is the day I’m no longer able to change my own diaper as I’ve sunk too far into senility.
5:27 pm
But in not lying, you certainly managed to obscure the truth—a man charged with the online protection of children was using the internet in a highly questionable manner so solicit a sexual response from a minor.
I’m sorry to hear you’re still in diapers. I’m a doctor, I could give you a name…
5:35 pm
Oh boy, it sure is gonna be hard to keep claiming CREW sat on the e-mails and let a sex predator keep running around in order to play October suprise:
Naomi Seligman, a spokeswoman for CREW, said the group also sent a letter to the FBI after it received the e-mails. CREW did not post their copies of the e-mail until ABC News reported them, instead waiting for the investigation.
What now? Blame the FBI?
5:57 pm
Now we’re deleting posts. When you’re afraid to continue, you lose.
I’ve had more entertaining conversations with a bar of soap. Besides, you are off topic and getting personal. Two very good reasons to not only delete your posts but ban your ass.
7:07 pm
Wow. My hypothesis that the left is incapable of distinguishing between two dissimilar things is gaining so much support!
One has to wonder if all the trolls, who appear to be capable of using a computer, are truly so dimwitted as to be incapable of distinguishing between the issue of the older, recently revealed explicit IMs and the newer, but less recently revealed and relatively innocuous emails.
I don’t want to believe that people can be that dim, but on the other hand I don’t want to believe that so many people are deliberately conflating the two as a part of an opportunistic, largely invented broad-brush smear.
To which the trolls will predictably respond that I’m defending Foley, by conflating my description of the accusations against Hastert and the Party in general with the accusations against Foley.
Doesn’t matter what’s real, only what they want to be real.
8:05 pm
C’mon, no one has explained to me what the difference between “over friendly” and “of a sexual nature” is when it comes to old men chatting up young boys. Merovign, you sound like just the sort of word parser who could explain this to me.
8:42 pm
Republican administrative officialsknew for years that this guy was bent.
Wingnuts will say anything to muddy the waters no matter how foul the actions of the Republican involved.
Sneer away at those who hold this administration up for what it is; the most corrupt, inept, perverted bunch of thugs ever to hold office. It doesn’t reduce the foulness of Bushco by a whit, and adds to your complicity in the most un-American regime ever.
9:03 pm
Flounder:
Is “send me a pic” automatically of a sexual nature, especially in the context of an e-mail expressing concern over danger from a natural disaster?
And if someone whose background you were not intimately familiar with, or you had even heard a few rumors about, sent an e-mail expressing concern and asking for a picture to a former acquaintance, would you consider that grounds for launching a criminal investigation, or just “odd?”
If the former, how many friends and acquaintances have you accused of sexual harassment for innocuous comments?
Foley may well have behaved grossly inappropriately, even criminally, but that all depends on evidence consisting of rumors and a third-party assertion of an online conversation delivered by parties unknown. His resignation certainly adds some credence to at least the rough substance of the allegations.
But none of that speaks to any conspiracy by the party or house or house® leadership to hide any criminal behavior.
And “parsing words” is something you should have learned before you began posting messages conflating the slightly creepy e-mails with the explicit IMs (re: your 172 & 184 messages).
The e-mails triggered pretty much nothing but a request to break off contact because the recipient was uncomfortable, and a couple of dead-end contacts to news agencies.
Any accusation of cover-up depend on some kind of evidence that the house leaders knew about the explicit messages before the recent release. Apart from accusations from J. Random Blog Posters, I haven’t seen any such evidence. If you find some, please do point it out.
In short, no one is arguing against the proposition that Foley behaved, at the least, inappropriately, and there is growing evidence that, in addition, he violated important rules of conduct and possibly laws. There is argument over which laws, if any, may apply, and there is likely more evidence forthcoming.
However, we are seeing a lot of rushed accusations of “pedophilia” (even before the rumors emerged about a 12-year-old boy), “conspiracy,” “corrruption,” and calls for criminal investigations of not just Foley, but Hastert and others.
And that’s not to mention the severe errors of description the majority of the accusers are committing, such as distorting the timeline, assuming facts not in evidence, conflating the two sets of messages, and the endless attempts to insert external issues into this discussion, which is pretty standard behavior in internet debates anyway.
But this situation certainly has the smell of an “October surprise” type political operation, though I doubt any significant percentage of those posting messages on the topic are following any kind of plan – they’re just responding to a meme that seems to fit their worldview.
The real damage being done by the distortions and conflations is to the ability of the left and right to come to any sort of accomodation.
Say for the sake of argument that this does sway the election and the Dems take the House and Senate, because of investigations that drag through November. And then, when the dust settles, there was no conspiracy, and Foley goes up on a harassment charge.
You think the left has a burr under their saddle over the 2000 election? Wait until they ride the coattails of a fraudulent accusation into power, especially one in which the major accusations are the result of simple lies (conflating the two different sets of messages).
The left and right already have a hard enough time talking to each other. We have been prosperous for a long, long time, and we have worked hard to try to be civilized. These are not permanent conditions, and we are not immune to the kind of falls that other civilizations have faced when they discovered their differences were irreconcilable.
I know the two parties pretty much accuse each other of the same things, and neither one is perfect.
But consider this – I’m a Libertarian. In 1999, I was the kind of person who said “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.” By the time of the 2004 elections, I had percieved that the market had changed. There have always been slimy attacks and hostility in politics, but recently the Democrats (at least large number of them) have become more and more radical, made literally dozens of major allegations that just haven’t been borne out, clung to those accusations even after they’ve failed… and I could detail those in a hundred-page post but my experience tells me, after countless debates, that the left just won’t listen.
I’ve been in some pretty brutal arguments with Republicans. But usually, when I present my evidence, at the very least I don’t get a response ignoring me and making the original allegation again. That is exactly the response I get from the left, in all but a very few cases.
Part of it is a “party out of power” problem, but it’s more than that, because many of these arguments were from the Clinton era as well.
Sorry for the long post, but the larger issue of the left-right schism is particularly relevant here. My perspective as something of an outsider is, of course, not immune to criticism, but I thought it might be worth reading.
9:56 pm
Republicans know about Foley in 2001, tell Republican pages to stay away from him and watch out for him being “over friendly”. Note that no hurricanes appear to be involved. Rep. Shimkus, knowing Foley has a prediliction to be “over friendly,” still goes on C-Span in 2002 telling us from there that Foley spends a lot of time with the kids and takes them out for one on one dinners. Fast forward to early this year, Republican leaders get word Foley is still pulling his “over friendly” routine and kids are describing it as “sick, sick, sick.” Regardless of prior history, “over friendly” is passed off as happening due to a hurricane. Should the e-mails have been passed off this way? And since it is obvious that somebody has been shopping these around for at least a few months (and CREW was trying to get the FBI involved before it could/and so it would verify auhenticity) it seems hard to characterize this as an “October surpise.” Besides, I thought Rove had already promised the fundies a big October surprise and I think he would be angry at you trying to use his term to describe actions by Democrats.
10:04 pm
B.Poster at 114:
You know what you never hear about the “aggressive interrogation”? Whether or not those being subjected to these fraternity initiations are guilty. No one says a word about that. Not as fast as they gloss over extraordinary renditions, but still.
So, you’re picked up in a sweep, or sold by bounty hunters, and handed over to US jailors. They keep you for years either at a US base, or some place closed to those inspectors you seem to have so much faith will provide oversight, and presumably subject you to only those fraternity pranks. Then they release you, no charges having been filed. That’s up to the American standard of the rule of law? The one we’re trying to bring to the rest of the world?
On a related note, could you point me to the portion of the act that specifies which techniques are allowed, and which aren’t? Since you seem to be basing your argument on knowledge of the permitted techniques when the President or Sec Def declares you an illegal combatant, I mean.
11:09 pm
“In 1999, I was the kind of person who said “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties.†By the time of the 2004 elections, I had percieved that the market had changed. There have always been slimy attacks and hostility in politics, but recently the Democrats…have become more and more radical, made literally dozens of major allegations that just haven’t been borne out”
Lemme see if I have this right: In 1999, when Republicans impeached the president over oral sex; accused him of raping numerous women; said he had a bastard black child; said he was running drugs out of the Mena airport; said he arranged the murder of Vince Foster (and dozens of other people); and accused him of wagging the dog when he tried to get bin Laden; you couldn’t tell the difference between the two parties? But now, Democrats are making dozens of allegations that just aren’t panning out? You’re an astute political observer.
11:41 pm
From Merovign, @ 189:
I’ve been in some pretty brutal arguments with Republicans. But usually, when I present my evidence, at the very least I don’t get a response ignoring me and making the original allegation again. That is exactly the response I get from the left, in all but a very few cases.
Then you haven’t argued faulty intelligence, WMD and their supposed transshipment to Syria, the status of Iraq or the economy, the failure that was Katrina, or the status of our military. All of which are rife with facts indicating the failure of the policy, but which don’t seem to dent the certitude of the Faith Based Argument community.
12:16 am
Couple of quick notes on this Foley issue.
First, the man, however creepy, cannot be classified as a pedophile due to age of consent laws in DC. They boy(s), while in their minority, could legally give consent.
Second, the legal violation is of a Federal statute that forbids the solicitation of sexual acts via the Internet. Using such language as this:
http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h/h4472.pdf
(7) EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ‘‘SPECIFIED OFFENSE
AGAINST A MINOR’’ TO INCLUDE ALL OFFENSES BY CHILD PREDATORS.—
The term ‘‘specified offense against a minor’’ means
an offense against a minor that involves any of the following:
(A) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving kidnapping.
(B) An offense (unless committed by a parent or
guardian) involving false imprisonment.
(C) Solicitation to engage in sexual conduct.
(D) Use in a sexual performance.
(E) Solicitation to practice prostitution.
(F) Video voyeurism as described in section 1801 of
title 18, United States Code.
(G) Possession, production, or distribution of child
pornography.
(H) Criminal sexual conduct involving a minor, or the
use of the Internet to facilitate or attempt such conduct. (Say, using email, or an IM.)
(I) Any conduct that by its nature is a sex offense
against a minor.
As to a cover-up, I’m not sure, but there are a couple of pointers:
From the AP story: The page worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander (news, bio, voting record), R-La., who said Friday that when he learned of the e-mail exchanges 10 to 11 months ago, he called the teen’s parents. Alexander told the Ruston Daily Leader, “We also notified the House leadership that there might be a potential problem,” a reference to the House’s Republican leaders.
Why would the leadership seek to protect him? Well, the AP story touched on that, too: Foley was a member of the Republican leadership, serving as a deputy whip. He also was a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.
And Senator Boehner seemed to have some notion, at least until he forgot he did. From the WaPo: The resignation rocked the Capitol, and especially Foley’s GOP colleagues, as lawmakers were rushing to adjourn for at least six weeks. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told The Washington Post last night that he had learned this spring of inappropriate “contact” between Foley and a 16-year-old page. Boehner said he then told House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.). Boehner later contacted The Post and said he could not remember whether he talked to Hastert.
So, it seems that the leadership failed to act on what they knew, possibly because the individual who was doing it was a member of the leadership. Seems a bit less complicated now.
1:14 am
Rightwing thought is intellectual cancer.
3:47 am
Officious Pedant:
Irony is just something that happens to other people, isn’t it?
I did indeed go through those arguments with Republicans. But instead of invective and smug certitude, I got evidence. Did they convince me of everything? No. But the “other side” has convinced me of nothing.
WMDs?
The Repubs told me that Saddam had them in the past, used them, had the stated intent of getting more, had not cooperated with inspectors, had lied repeatedly, and presented intelligence reports from our allies about his efforts – which they still stand by.
Democrats claimed that a hearsay report by a British bureaucrat about his opinions of what the intentions of the Americans might be was more authoritative than British, French and Italian intelligence reports. They claimed that the US “supplied Saddam with his arsenal” and some of the claimants even said we were his largest supplier (11th largest, actually). After the chain of events was laid out, it’s harder to imagine a less credible witness against the Administration than Joe Wilson, and it keeps getting worse every time he opens his mouth.
I had similar experiences with just about every issue I examined, though admittedly by the time Katrina hit I was expecting the left to simply Blame Bush First, ignore any successes, play race and poverty cards, not do a hell of a lot to help, and basically carry on like hungry, angry babies.
Not that Republicans are perfect, far from it. Like I said, they’re not worth much. But at least they’re worth something.
I’m not comfortable on the right, especially since the Bush administration shares a major trait with the Democratic party – spending like it was going out of style (not even counting the war effort). Neither major party has a very strong grasp of economics, though at least on taxation, the last forty years have shown that the Repubs are about a hundred times better than the democrats.
But I’ve become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I can’t honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that I’d consider voting for.
Y’all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of “old” funding and left Soros’ 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if he’s serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.
Best of luck with the election, especially now.
9:57 am
I love how you can’t face the idea that your party would go to great lengths to protect a pervert for election gain – you need to slap yourself awake my friend – this is not the party you want to be a part of.
ps
it is going to get worse this week
12:51 pm
Merovign @ 196 projected:
But I’ve become so disgusted with the hysteria, bloody-mindedness and power madness of the left, and their willingness to seek new heights in the already feotid swamps of DC dishonesty, that I can’t honestly think of more than a couple of Democratic politicians that I’d consider voting for.
Which is a profoundly odd thing to say when the last 6 years have been all about the Unitary Executive and his unfettered authority, in the person of the Commander in Chief, to prosecute wars, detain citizens, listen in on calls, ignore the law, and funnel unprecedented sums to his cronies (competent or not).
Y’all should have read the contract before you sold out to Soros (through the bipartisan McCain-Feingold bill, which shut out a lot of “old†funding and left Soros’ 501s funding a LOT of your publicity efforts). Maybe if he’s serious about quitting, the actual grassroots can get hold of the Democrat party and actually stage a principled foil to the Repubs, as opposed to just opposing them on principle.
Yeah, that Soros is such a partisan fiend. Totally unlike Mr. Scaife in every way. Say, how’s that Heritage Foundation fundraiser going? Maybe he could have Regnery Publishing (you know, the folks that published the Swift Boat smear) help out.
See, that’s just wilfull blindness, there. You play down your partisanship (which is fine) to seem reasonable (which is the problem), but you wander back to Wilson, Katrina, and Blame Bush First arguments because they are your default position. Go ahead, tell me how Bush didn’t cause the hurricane, I can take it. The fact that was never the issue aside. Rather it was the ineffectual response of the Federal Government after they had declared an emergency days before Katrina made landfall, but failed to show until 7 days after landfall. Tell me about Saddam’s Weapons program, largely fabricated by Curveball (who has now recanted) after the Germans made clear he was unreliable. Let’s talk about Chalabi leading Bush and his Administration around by their noses, and being paid by the US government while in the employ of Iranian Intelligence.
Let’s talk about the good news of the Baghdad Police Academy, the rise in opium production in Afghanistan, and Ken Mehlmans assertion that Afghanistan is a failed state. Let’s talk about giving Pakistan nuclear technology right before they reach an accord with North Waziristan. Lets talk about lawlessness in the Anbar province (one third of the country), and the steady drumbeat of high level military officers concerned that the armed forces are being broken in Iraq, which could take years to repair. Skyrocketing debt and deficits, government that has grown every year since Bush was elected, and corruption so widespread as to be endemic.
But you want to talk about the “good news” of schools being painted (too bad you take your life in your hands trying to go, and don’t even mention girls), establishing a parliametary government (which uses Islam as its guiding principle, and is now jailing journalists for criticism), power coming on line (and just about reaching a percentage what there was before the war)? You took a giant step back from reality, and want to call that reasoned debate? It’s called making it up as you go, because the suckers will buy it. And it’s going to cost you in November.
9:48 pm
Officious Pedant:
We obviously live on two different planets. I can only hope that trend is a historical curiousity and not a tragedy as we try to move forward.
I could drown you in documents and links, but like I said, I’ve done that before (way too many times) and it was a complete waste. You’re impervious, and that will cost everyone, not just me.
Been down this road before, it goes nowhere. Don’t really know why I keep trying, maybe because I know people don’t learn from their mistakes.
Feel free to misinterpret that any way you like, not that you won’t anyway.
4:31 pm
This is really interesting commentary, I really have to stretch my understanding of English- in both its use and misuse – to understand it. Please forgive language errors, English isn’t my native tongue, and this PDA keyboard is poor.
One thing, As I understand Sexual Harressment Law, in cases where there is a large power differental between employer and employee, willingness isn’t germaine. An employee with a wide power difference subservent to the employer can’t rise to the level of unfettered conscent. This is settled case law. In addition, the import of the whole situation was in relation to a deposition on a sexual harrassment lawsuit. Often the only way to prove that the S.H. occurred is to display a pattern by the alleged perp. The lying under oath is what was Clinton’s problem, but he had no choice—if he told the truth, he’d have been convicted.
Please note, if you two groups are enjoying yelling at each other, I’ve always found it more fun when the combatants actually are cognizant of the facts. I haven’t joined a party yet, but the aforementioned chide is directed at the Dimondocrats, the Repoblicans seem to try to do the right thing, even if they occasionally fall off.
-Mao Ma4 Ding
8:54 pm
..oops, Breaking Now! looks like ABC LIED! The ‘kid’ was 18.. guess that changes a lot..
11:03 am
And when did he turn 18, Breaking? Or is that immaterial to your claim?