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.

The Sheikh and the Clintons’ Rising Net Worth

What’s behind the Clinton’s rapidly swelling personal coffers?

......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.

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

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.

[...] 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? [...]

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.

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.

SNP

I have deleted your comment…

I ALREADY LINKED THE SAME EXACT ROLL CALL PIECE YOU IGNORAMOUS!

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.

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.

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.”

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?

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”...

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.

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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moran #17

Your the one asking men [and women] to risk their lives for nothing…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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…..

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).

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.

“>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!

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.

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/

” 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.

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.

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.

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!

He’s gay and preying on children left in his care.

His sexual orientation is irelevant. It’s the age of the other party that matters.

Republicans and Democrats should demand new leadership.

Horse Hockey. The Republicans own this one.

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.

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?

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.

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)”

The Democrats would not allow the Repbulcians to keep sensitive files from them.

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.

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.

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.

1. 41: The investigation should be completed before any final decisions are made. We would need to determine who knew what and when. If it is determined that Hastert participated in a cover up, which seems highly likely, then he should resign and being prosecuted. Questions should also be asked of the Democrats for failing to perform the proper oversight functions. It has never been a problem before for either party to over see the other. I think they likely knew about this ll months ago but it would need to be proven. At best, it appears the Democrat was incompetent and at worst a co conspirator. In any event, the investigations will need to be completed.

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.

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.)

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.

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.]...

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.

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.

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.

[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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Man.

You wicked cwazy.

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.

I agree. Why spoil a good scandal with facts.

It’s much easier to spoil one by blaming the other party.

Jesus Christ.

You’re angry at the wrong people, Rick. Just saying.

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.

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