Republican party covered up sick emails for five years

lostexpectation

stories coming through now, it was said on abc news that one email asked the young pages to measure their dicks, and another rep was paid to shush up


I like this one, good advie for any large organisations anywhere hint hint

GET RID OF YOUR PEDOPHILES.

Rep. Reynolds' NRCC received $100,000 from disgraced Rep. Foley in July, after he learned about Foley's inappropriate emails with minors

As reported yesterday, Reynolds declined to report the inappropriate emails to authorities or act on them -- now we may know why

During the same period Rep. Tom Reynolds was keeping Mark Foley's inappropriate emails with minors secret, his campaign committee coffers received a $100,000 donation from Foley, it was revealed today. Reynolds has come under fire for knowing about the inappropriate emails for many months and covering it up to protect his colleague who has since been forced to resign.

This guy was on the missing and abducted childrens cmttee.

!!

Frederico

Yeah I read some of the transcripts of his online conversations, they are up on fark.com. Seems like a fairly harmless closet homosexual, but this will make huge news in the US. Pity that this will get the limelight over other more serious matters.

TomF

I don't think the whole Foley ruckus is much more than a cynical exploitation of what that strange man was doing with Congressional pages, and it seems that Republican leaders were concerned that they would be seen as anti-gay if they took strong action against him. This long article pretty much sums it up, I'd say, and helps to remind all of us that the Democratic Party of the U.S.A. is about as pure as the Fianna Fail Party here!

"Foley and the Blame Game
October 1st, 2006

Pardon me, but I smell something very peculiar in the way we have learned of the disgrace of Rep. Mark Foley.

The email scandal which led to the resignation of the Republican Congressman is reverberating throughout the capital and the nation, as Democrats attempt to capitalize on bad news for Republicans. The seamiest of the released emails, which Foley has not denied, are right up there with Rhodes Scholar and Illinois Democratic Congressman Mel Reynolds’ taped phone conversations lusting for 15 year old Catholic school girls in their uniforms.

But Democrats are attempting to make hay by alleging that the Republican leadership may have known about the inappropriate emails and covered them up for months. Their hope, no doubt, is to discourage turnout by disillusioned evangelical and other voters sensitive to moral issues. But the emerging background detail suggests that this is simply not the case, and that an attack strategy has been devised by parties anxious to damage the GOP and swing the coming election.

In July a blog appeared, designed it said to trace sex predators. Few posts were made in that month or the following month. All recounted years old stories. Then on September 18, the blog printed the fairly innocuous email exchange between Congressman Foley and an unnamed page.In this correspondence initiated by the former page, Foley asks the former page how he is after Katrina (the boy lived in Louisiana) and asked for a photo. Thus began the latest political kerfuffle which swirls through the final five weeks of the campaign. How likely is it that this site with virtually no readership , few posts and hardly any history or posts of interest suddenly receives this bombshell? I’d say slight. About as likely as Lucy Ramirez handing Burkett Bush’s TANG papers. Let’s track back what else we know of this story. Sometime last year a former page contacted the St. Petersburg Times with an exchange of emails between himself and Congressman Foley. In the words of the editor, they never ran the story. (The following has been realeased by the office of the Speaker of the House, but does not yet appear online at the time of this writing.)

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 theteen 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.

So, the paper had nothing it could act on. But Foley’s opponent somehow got wind of the story which had appeared before only on a very new, utterly obscure blogsite and demanded an investigation. ABC then picked up the story and when it did , further anonymous sources with far more salacious and troublesome evidence appeared on the scene. What an amazing-and unlikely to me-turn of events. Like that paper, the Republican leadership only knew of the innocuous email exchange:

Late night Congressman Hastert said of the incident (in terms remarkably similar to the editor’s):

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 thatday 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.

It is not only the recent, unread blog spot breaking the story which raises my suspicions. The rest of the genesis of the story is as murky.

Brian Ross of ABC ran the story, beginning with the same “overly friendly” but not sexually suggestive email exchange and adding a series of instant messages dating to 2003 previously unseen by anyone in Congress between Foley and anonymous recipients said to be former pages. The Republican leaders, seeing the more damning correspondence, sought and got Foley’s resignation.

As soon as the ABC story ran, and organization called C.R.E.W., which said it had the original exchange which Hastert had heard of and the St Peterburg paper had seen, put them on their website .They said they’d earlier conveyed them to the FBI, were releasing them because of the ABC story, and asked for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Republican leadership.It is abundantly clear to me that C.R.E.W. and ABC communicated and may have coordinated the release of this story.

Who is C.R.E.W.?

Here’s what The Hill wrote:

One target of Republican criticism is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group that last year assisted former Rep. Chris Bell (D-Texas) in drafting an ethics complaint against DeLay, which resulted in an admonishment of DeLay from the ethics committee. At last week’s press conference, Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, said that DeLay should step down as majority leader.

From 1995 to 1998, CREW’s Sloan served as minority counsel for the House Judiciary Committee under Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.). Before that, Sloan served as the nominations counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee under Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.).

According to GOP research, Mark Penn, who had been a pollster for President Clinton, and Daniel Berger, a major Democratic donor, are on CREW’s board. Spokeswoman Naomi Seligman declined several requests to reveal the membership of CREW’s board, although she confirmed that Penn and Berger are members. Last year, Berger made a $100,000 contribution to America Coming Together (ACT), a 527 group that was dedicated to defeating Bush in the presidential election, according to politicalmoneyline.com, a website that tracks fundraising.

CREW declined to respond to the RNC talking points or House GOP research.

C.R.E.W. is one of four “public interest” organizations which the RNC has long identifed as major donors of George Soros richly-funded Open Society Institute. It is backing the risible Wilson/Plame civil suit against Cheney and others.

What do we know of Brian Ross?

My favorite media watcher, Steve Gilbert reports:

Brian Ross of ABC News is the reporter behind the story that Rep. Dennis Hastert is being investigated by the Department Of Justice. Ross is sticking to his charges despite vehement denials from both the DOJ and Hastert himself.

Some may recall that Brian Ross has been involved in past journalistic controversies. Just last week, Mr. Ross reported he was tipped off by unnamed “senior federal officials” that his cell phone was tapped by NSA.

Last month, Ross was one of the first (if not the first) to report that Rush Limbaugh “had been arrested.” Reports which turned out to be greatly exaggerated, but which Ross never corrected.

In January, Brian Ross was the first to promulgate the claims of the self-proclaimed NSA whistleblower, Russell Tice. Ross treated Tice has a highly credible source even though Tice had been cashiered from the agency due to “psychological problems.”

But all of these recent achievements pale in comparison to Mr. Ross’s earlier journalistic lapse, if an earlier entry in Wikipedia is to be believed. For it claimed Ross who was responsible for Dateline NBC’s rigging of truck fuel tanks in 1993.

ABC has not disclosed the names of the recipients of the instant messages which were sexually explicit, years old, and not seen by anyone else. We do not know how anyone but the recipients could have retrieved them. We do not even know if they are authentic. None of the recipients has come forward and identified himself. What we do know is that reputable media and the Republican leadership acted appropriately on the initial innocuous correspondence and could not proceed further in view of the parents’ demand that their son’s privacy be respected only to find months later just before the election that same correpondence showing up on an unlikely blog site and then almost simultaneously on ABC and on C.R.E.W.’s site. As for the demand that a special prosecutor be appointed, maybe Patrick Fitzgerald can be appointed. Then he can fail to ask ABC or C.R.E.W. how they got the correspondence, ignore their political motivations, conflate their partisanship with “whistleblowing”, not look for the sources of the later sexually explicit emails, and nab Hastert for forgetting when he went to the bathroom on the day he heard about the emails.

Clarice Feldman is an attorney in Washington, DC. and a frequent contributor to American Thinker"

Hobbes

Sorry TomF but praying on children doesn't make you gay. It is also no longer a case of "may of known about it".

GOP are on pure damage control at the moment. I had to laugh at one GOP interview where they were trying to compare Clinton to a pedophile as being somehow justified. Another where the GOP woman said "This one incident" whereby the Democrat in the interview listed off 45 names of GOP members currently arrested or under investigation. As a rebuttal all she could manage was 2 names.

Hobbes

Funny how your news story doesn't reflect reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJU6qU-rV_M

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I don't think the whole Foley ruckus is much more than a cynical exploitation of what that strange man was doing with Congressional pages,

What is cynical or exploitative about causing a ruckus over paedophilia?

Are you going to take the Drudge line and blame the kids and argue that it doesn't really count as paedophilia any more because, well, the law is quaint and out of touch with reality or some such tripe?

Or perhaps you could explain how an investigation into allegations of misconduct between two consenting adults was worth spending millions of dollars under a previous President, but allegations of paedophilia is just cynical exploitation of a situation?

and it seems that Republican leaders were concerned that they would be seen as anti-gay if they took strong action against him.

So you admit that Republican leaders were complicit in covering up acts of Paedophilia that they were aware of?

Would you care to name these scum...or "honourable gentlemen" as you'd no doubt prefer them to be called.

This long article pretty much sums it up, I'd say,

Well done. No issue that you care to comment on would be complete without a good old "its all those damned Democrats fault really" news article.

TomF...please...continue defending a paedophile.

Keep insisting that the Democrats are somehow wrong for wanting this paedophile brought to justice, as well as anyone who may have known and not acted on the information.

You know its the right and honourable thing to do, right?

lostexpectation

this is bordereline tomf but foley stepped over the line.

I don't know what the age rules are on paedophilia, more towards 12ish, and don't know want defines children 16/18 but its definitly predatory, creepy, abuse of power, abuse of position, these pages were supposed to work for congress like him.

and he the guy that wrote draft laws on things like grooming.

there even might have some pages that recipracated his interest, but there was clearly some who didn't and he kept on them, that called crosssing the line, gay or not.

tony snow called them 'just naughty emails'.

TomF

I don't think anything I posted can be taken as a defense of paedophilia, but it is a great tarry brush to swing around even if it makes the brush wielder look a little thick. Foley not homosexual? Was he sending instant messages to any female pages or ex-pages?

If anyone cares to take the time to notice, Foley was expelled by his party's leadership and has resigned to boot. I'm just as happy that he is gone, as I am sure are his constituents. It is the Democratic Party that is trying to make this a case against the Republican Party.

Before getting on the soap box, posters should try to tease out the distinction between Foley's relatively innocuous emails to the youths and the instant messages in which he got down and dirty. (Surely the knowledgable posters on this board are aware there is a difference between email and instant messages?)

flogen

TomF wrote:

I don't think anything I posted can be taken as a defense of paedophilia, but it is a great tarry brush to swing around even if it makes the brush wielder look a little thick. Foley not homosexual? Was he sending instant messages to any female pages or ex-pages?

If anyone cares to take the time to notice, Foley was expelled by his party's leadership and has resigned to boot. I'm just as happy that he is gone, as I am sure are his constituents. It is the Democratic Party that is trying to make this a case against the Republican Party.

Before getting on the soap box, posters should try to tease out the distinction between Foley's relatively innocuous emails to the youths and the instant messages in which he got down and dirty. (Surely the knowledgable posters on this board are aware there is a difference between email and instant messages?)

I think the democrats have a reason to make this a case against the Republicans; other members of the party have admitted to standing by in silence while this individual sent these emails... how could anyone allow this to go on when they know it's happening?

I do have to laugh at Foley's excuse; he's an alcoholic and his problem caused him to do it... that's right; drinking makes you a paedophile... I certainly hope that will be one of the warnings they put on beer glasses in the near future.

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

Foley was expelled by his party's leadership and has resigned to boot.

That isn't the issue. The issue is that people have known about his antics for 5 years and covered it up and there are even emails warning pages about his tastes.

posters should try to tease out the distinction between Foley's relatively innocuous emails to the youths and the instant messages in which he got down and dirty. (Surely the knowledgable posters on this board are aware there is a difference between email and instant messages?)

So its ok if you do it by messenger? Lets see...

email: "Do I make you a little horny?"

vs

messenger: "Well strip down and get relaxed"

The issue here is well is the position he held as well. What investigations he may of impeded or material he would of gotten for his sick fetish.

Hobbes

Jon Stewarts take on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pvqe36nRs

"You see that's why I treat my interns like sh!t. You try being nice to them and they get all horny".

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I don't think anything I posted can be taken as a defense of paedophilia,

At least some of the people targetted by Foley were children. That makes his actions classifiable under law as paedophilia, no?

Had he actually had sexual congress with any of them it would be statutory rape, regardless of consent, correct?

So why, given these pertinent facts, do you wish to focus on whether or not he was engaging in a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual manner, when none of that has any legal ramifications whatsoever.

The only rational explanation is that you want to frame the debate away from the real problems with this guys actions, and towards something that the Americans love to be squeamish about but which at the end of the day is no big deal.

Foley not homosexual? Was he sending instant messages to any female pages or ex-pages?

I don't care about the gender of his targets. No-one should.

I do care what he did regarding those who were underage, regardless of gender.

It is not a question of gay or not-gay. I couldn't care less what way his preferences go when it comes to consenting adults. What I do care about is his obvious interest in minors, and no, I still don't care about their gender.

The only possible reason to try and make it a gay / not gay issue is to get away from the fact that his targets were (some of them, at least) legally classed as minors.

Before getting on the soap box, posters should try to tease out the distinction between Foley's relatively innocuous emails to the youths and the instant messages in which he got down and dirty.

Are you sugegsting that he mightn't be guilty of targetting children at all?

Or just that it wasn't serious paedophilia, but rather some not-so-serious variant of it? Isn't that the way it goes? The old "well, gosh, maybe the rules were stretched a bit, but its not like anyone was killed or national security was put at stake or anything" runaround?

I mean...seriously...what distinction, exactly, are you suggesting exists here, and what do you see it as implying about his behaviour regarding minors.

You're sugegsting there's something to be found...why not make your case rather than relying on innuendo?

Someone on a blog I read took the following stance either about Snow or Drudge making the same type of diversionary platitudes....

Are you a parent TomF? Would you have any issues with your children receiving this type of attention from an adult male in the workplace whilst underage? Would you have any issues with said adult's coworkers and seniors no taking action to put a stop activities immediately once they became aware of them? If and when the adult who was treating your children this way was finally caught, would you want the question of his actions to revolve around the gender or the age of your child?

TomF

The focus on whether Foley is being seen to have been encouraging homosexual encounters between himself and young males is not mine, it is just fact. That the males in question were of a specific range of ages could make it paedophilia (I certainly don't make a study of where this or that is against the law). I am not as sure that there would be this shrill an uproar if the pages in question had been nubile females.

At any rate, the impression created in the minds of the voters in Foley's Congressional district is that he is homosexual as well as being paedophilic, and that is going to influence votes because his name remains on the ballot because of some other Florida election law. That his behaviour is paedophilic is of course going to influence votes, too.

A very large numbers of voters in Foley's district are going to vote against his Republican Party stand-in candidate (who cannot be named on the November ballot) because they will see Foley's name on the ballot, and they don't want a homosexual in that office, and because they don't want a paedophile in that office. Simple.

It is also simple that the Democratic Party is making hay with the whispering, verging on screaming, that Foley is homosexual and paedophilic, and they are not going to care if their mainly Democratic gay constituents are offended. It is all a play to get that district's seat, and the whole uproar was carefully orchestrated by the Democrats and their media helpers to that end. (And yes, I know homosexuals are not necessarily paedophilic, but Ireland's experience with paedophilic priests suggests a strong relationship, and that is why candidates for entry to seminaries are being very carefully vetted now to divert homosexuals and paedophiles from the priesthood.)

Is it clear now? I am not the one focusing on Foley's sexual nature, I am saying that the Democratic party wants those Florida district voters to so focus, and to vote against what they are focussed on. It is textbook dirty politics, and purely in the recent U.S. Democratic Party mode.

(P.S. Yes, I'm a happily married father of four children: young man, young woman, young woman, young man).

oscarBravo

TomF wrote:

And yes, I know homosexuals are not necessarily paedophilic, but Ireland's experience with paedophilic priests suggests a strong relationship...

No, it doesn't. At all.

lostexpectation

TomF wrote:

The focus on whether Foley is being seen to have been encouraging homosexual encounters between himself and young males is not mine, it is just fact. That the males in question were of a specific range of ages could make it paedophilia (I certainly don't make a study of where this or that is against the law). I am not as sure that there would be this shrill an uproar if the pages in question had been nubile females.


[\quote]

cybersex with 16 year old girls, yes it ****ing would, read what you just wrote????

At any rate, the impression created in the minds of the voters in Foley's Congressional district is that he is homosexual as well as being paedophilic, and that is going to influence votes because his name remains on the ballot because of some other Florida election law. That his behaviour is paedophilic is of course going to influence votes, too.
[\quote]

I don't know how you qualify to be a homosexual, but he clearly has tendicies, as in the daily show, he was '52yr old single man'.

A very large numbers of voters in Foley's district are going to vote against his Republican Party stand-in candidate (who cannot be named on the November ballot) because they will see Foley's name on the ballot, and they don't want a homosexual in that office, and because they don't want a paedophile in that office. Simple.

yes and...?


It is also simple that the Democratic Party is making hay with the whispering, verging on screaming, that Foley is homosexual and paedophilic, [did you watch the daily show youtube , jon stewart rebuts that point better then i could and they are not going to care if their mainly Democratic gay constituents are offended.

[\quote]

ridiculous, the guy resigned before he was fired, you're defending it more then he is???

lets hear what the christian right ahs to say...

First up, Jerry Falwell:

<chirp...chirp...chirp...>

Oh well, I'm sure Dr. James Dobson at Focus on the Family has spoken out:

<chirp...chirp...chirp...>

The Traditional Values Coalition??

Humm, nothing. (They do have ABC footage that Bill Clinton doesn't want you to see though! ).

Tony Perkins over at the Family Research Council???

<static......>

Pat Robertson????

Nope, nothing there....

Concerned Women for America ???

Nada. Although there some controversy concerning "Madonna vs. Veggie Tales", go figure...

Christian Coalition of America ???

Silence.....

Sgt. Sensible

TomF wrote:

(P.S. Yes, I'm a happily married father of four children: young man, young woman, young woman, young man).

And Bonkey's other questions?

bonkey wrote:

Would you have any issues with your children receiving this type of attention from an adult male in the workplace whilst underage? Would you have any issues with said adult's coworkers and seniors no taking action to put a stop activities immediately once they became aware of them? If and when the adult who was treating your children this way was finally caught, would you want the question of his actions to revolve around the gender or the age of your child?

Hobbes

Watching the spin on this is hilarious. I think its reached its peak though..

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

For those who don't watch the Vid Fox News were reporting Foley as a democrat.

bonkey

lostexpectation wrote:

lets hear what the christian right ahs to say...
<snip>
Silence.....

Well, its englightening to know that this isn't a family values issue for them.

I hope they'll remember this next time they want to complain about chat-room sexual predators etc....or maybe the distinction is that its unacceptable for a stranger to prey on kids, but as long as he's an elected representative of your chosen party, its all good.

MeatProduct

Hobbes wrote:

Watching the spin on this is hilarious. I think its reached its peak though..

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

For those who don't watch the Vid Fox News were reporting Foley as a democrat.

The sound isn't working on that Hobbes, did it work when you saw it?

Nick

Zombrex

TomF wrote:

Is it clear now? I am not the one focusing on Foley's sexual nature, I am saying that the Democratic party wants those Florida district voters to so focus

No they don't.

They want them to focus on the fact that he was trailing internet sites for underage boys and that the Republican party members covered this up.

Are you defending his choice to trail internet sites looking for underage boys as being perfectly fine behaviour for a politican?

Or are you defending the right of the Republican party to cover up that he was doing this as perfectly fine behaviour for a government party?

RE*AC*TOR

daily show had a good take on this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pvqe36nRs

Also last night episode showed foley at a press conference surrounded by kids.

I thought the republicans were starting to regain ground ahead of the mid-term elections, but stuff like this is will probably send them back to where they were a few months ago, when people were predicting the Democrats to run away with the mid-terms.


Here's hoping.

Hobbes

MeatProduct wrote:

The sound isn't working on that Hobbes, did it work when you saw it?

Nick

Sound isn't supposed to work and it only shows up for the first few seconds.

biko

Well, Foley claimed internet predators need psychriatic care, when he was hunting his own kind down. Good thing he can avail of that now.

Chucky the tree

Attorney: Clergyman molested Foley as teen

Story Highlights
•Attorney says Foley was molested as a teen and is gay
•Foley never had sexual contact with a minor, is not a pedophile, lawyer says
•Report: Congressman had cybersex with teen before 2003 House vote
•Attorney: Foley will elaborate when he is released from treatment center

WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- Former Rep. Mark Foley was molested by a clergyman when he was between the ages of 13 and 15, his attorney said Tuesday amid allegations that the congressman exchanged inappropriate e-mails and instant messages with teen congressional pages.

Foley, a Florida Republican, resigned Friday amid questions over e-mails he allegedly wrote to a former page, asking the boy what he liked to do and requesting a photograph.

The scandal has been troublesome for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has been criticized over his handling of the matter. (Full story)

Foley's attorney, David Roth, said Foley had never had sexual contact with a minor and said any assertion that Foley is a pedophile is "categorically false."

Roth would not release details of Foley's alleged molestation, saying only that making it public "is part of Mark's recovery" and that Foley would discuss it further when he is released from a center where he's being treated for alcoholism and mental issues. It will be at least 30 days before he is discharged, Roth said. (Watch the attorney explain that Foley is not a pedophile -- 2:07Video)

Roth added that "Mark Foley wants you to know he is a gay man."

Though the attorney would not provide the religious affiliation of the clergyman who allegedly molested Foley, Foley lists his religion as Catholic, according to a congressional directory.

"He continues to offer no excuse whatsoever for his conduct," said Roth, who spoke to Foley on Tuesday. "This was a life decision, not a tactical one made by others."

Asked why Foley waited to divulge the alleged molestation, Roth replied, "Shame."

Roth's announcement came shortly after ABC News published correspondences it said indicated Foley had Internet sex with a former page before going to a vote on the House floor in 2003.

The network published a partial transcript of the instant messages on its Web site but did not quote the exchanges in which it said the congressman and the high school student apparently had orgasms.

Former pages gave ABC News the transcripts, which were dated 2003, the network reported.

ABC also published the e-mails that triggered the controversy last week. Roth said Tuesday that Foley was under the influence of alcohol when he wrote the messages.

The teen who received the e-mails forwarded the messages to a congressional colleague, calling the correspondences "sick, sick, sick." (Watch a former page say she never got a "creepy feeling" from Foley -- 1:36Video)

Soon after, instant messages surfaced in which Foley reportedly engaged in sexually explicit exchanges with a teenage male page.

In one exchange, Foley allegedly asked the boy, "Do I make you a little horny?"

President Bush said Tuesday he was "disgusted" by the accusations surrounding Foley.

"I was dismayed and shocked to learn about Congressman Foley's unacceptable behavior," he said while visiting George W. Bush ElementarySchool in Stockton, California. "I was disgusted by the revelations and disappointed that he would violate the trust of the citizens who placed him in office."

Bush said that he supported the call by Hastert for a full investigation.

Top GOP leaders also have spoken out against Foley. Hastert, House Majority Leader John Boehner and House Majority Whip Roy Blount issued a joint statement over the weekend calling Foley's alleged actions "an obscene breach of trust."

"[Foley's] immediate resignation must now be followed by the full weight of the criminal justice system," the congressmen said.

Boehner, whose daughter was once a congressional page, added Tuesday that if he had known earlier of the allegations against Foley, "I'd have drug him out of there by his shirtsleeves."

Rep. John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, has acknowledged knowing about an "overly friendly" exchange between Foley and a former male page. The e-mails, which occurred in 2005 between Foley and a page from Louisiana, were not sexually explicit. (Watch a timeline of how the scandal unfolded -- 2:05Video)

Foley assured Shimkus that nothing inappropriate had occurred, and Foley was warned not to have contact with the teen and to watch his conduct around pages, Shimkus said.

The conservative Washington Times newspaper wrote in an editorial that Hastert should step down because of his handling of the incident, saying he was either negligent or "deliberately looked the other way."

Bush and Boehner came to Hastert's defense. Boehner wrote a letter to The Washington Times editor, saying, "No one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages that were revealed by ABC News last Friday."

The FBI, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the House Ethics Committee are investigating Foley's conduct -- and whether there was any attempt to cover it up.

CNN's Susan Candiotti, Andrea Koppel, John Zarrella and Dana Bash contributed to this report.



Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10...ndal/index.html

.


ABC with some more

Instant Messages Obtained by ABC News Cast Doubt on Claims from Foley's Lawyer

October 03, 2006 8:07 PM

Brian Ross Reports:

Mark Foley was sexually molested by a clergyman when Foley was between the ages of 13 and 15 and "wants you to know he is a gay man," his lawyer, David Roth, said late Tuesday. Mr. Roth said the disclosure was part of his client's "recovery."

Asked why the former congressman did not reveal this information sooner, Roth said, "Shame, shame."

"As is so often the case with victims of abuse, Mark advises that he kept his shame to himself for almost 40 years," Roth said.

Foley, who checked into an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Florida, also "reiterates unequivocally that he has never had sexual contact with a minor," Roth said.

But instant messages obtained by ABC News do reveal that Congressman Foley met with an underage page in San Diego, a meeting which they spoke about in an instant message exchange from April, 2003.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.

Roth said he knew but could not reveal the name and denomination of the clergyman who molested him. According to Foley's biography on his Web site, he was raised as a Roman Catholic in the West Palm Beach area.

Foley's lawyer said Foley takes responsibility for sending sexually graphic instant messages over the Internet and was under the influence of alcohol when he sent many of the messages.

He denied, however, that Foley ever offered to provide alcohol for teens at his Capitol Hill apartment.

But according to an instant message provided to ABC News by a former page, Foley did make such an offer to a former page in April, 2003.

Maf54: then we can have a few drinks
Maf54: lol
Teen: yes yes ;-)
Maf54: your not old enough to drink
Teen: shhh....
Maf54: ok
Teen: thats not what my ID says
Teen: lol
Maf54: ok
Teen: i probably shouldnt be telling you that huh
Maf54: we may need to drink at my house so we dont get busted

Hobbes

Gets better. Here is a breakdown of US media where they blame the democrats for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPCSm90eSiE

TomF

I have to admit to being a little confused here. Foley made a public statement yesterday, through his attorney, that he is gay. He also denied any paedophilia, or maybe it is paedophilic contact with a minor that he denies, much as Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of "is".

Foley is being pilloried for being a paedophiliac, but we are told to believe that his being gay has no connection with that.

What are the Florida Democratic Party's gay constituency going to make of all this when it comes time to vote?

TomF

I followed a link to a fascinating blog trace of how the controversial instant messages attributed to ex-Representative Foley were put on the Internet. It certainly looks like a simple case of dirty tricks by the U.S. Democratic Party. If you keep following links, the gossip gets dirtier and dirtier, and I had to go wash my computer.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/the-bogus-blog-behind-foleys-fall.php

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I have to admit to being a little confused here. Foley made a public statement yesterday, through his attorney, that he is gay. He also denied any paedophilia, or maybe it is paedophilic contact with a minor that he denies, much as Bill Clinton parsed the meaning of "is".

Foley is being pilloried for being a paedophiliac, but we are told to believe that his being gay has no connection with that.

What are the Florida Democratic Party's gay constituency going to make of all this when it comes time to vote?

Continue harping on the gay issue.

Foley makes it a point of note. You make it a point of note. THe Republicans used ti as an excuse as to why they didn't deal with the guy...

With any luck we'll all start thinking its a gay issue any day now.....

It certainly looks like a simple case of dirty tricks by the U.S. Democratic Party.

Certainly????? A single online blog claiming it was the Democrats, and all of a sudden it certainly looks that way???? Gosh, well, if we're certain....that changes things.

Wait...I've actually gone and read the link. (I know...shame on me).

Nowhere does it mention the Democrats. Its also the case that nowhere does it say that any of the allegations are unfounded. Maybe you could explain how its "certainly" looking like dirty tricks. Could you also tell us if it is still dirty tricks if the allegations are true?

To be honest, if it is a dirty-tricks operation, I would say it looks more like a Rove Disinformation Special then a Democratic dirty-tricks campaign. Causing a stir with manufactured dirt on his own side, so he can debunk it at the right time......Rovian to a T.

J.S. Pill

Hobbes wrote:

Jon Stewarts take on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Pvqe36nRs

Cracker!!!

Hobbes

TomF wrote:

Foley made a public statement yesterday, through his attorney, that he is gay.

Once your interest is children you are no longer homo/hetro-sexual, your a pedophile.

Try to think of it this way. If you have sex with a dead woman, your no longer hetro, your necrophilac.

told to believe that his being gay has no connection with that.

There is no connection between the two. In fact if you go read up on NAMBLA the members don't see themselves as gay.

What are the Florida Democratic Party's gay constituency going to make of all this when it comes time to vote?

They are probably going to vote democrat after republican heads are trying to equate pedophila with homosexuality like what your trying to do.

Hes currently trying to play the victim card of "Oh I'm gay" or "I'm an alcoholic" or "I was abused as a child". Not working. His latest press interview of having children in the room and refusing to let them leave the room while the discussion of his pedophila is just sickening.

and the real political issue isn't foley but the fact the Republicans where keeping quiet about this for about 5 years. There is also talk now of possible hush money being given, a lot of the republicans are actually dumping money they recieved from Foley except for the NRCC who said they would be keeping the 500k they got.

bobbyjoe

TomF wrote:

I followed a link to a fascinating blog trace of how the controversial instant messages attributed to ex-Representative Foley were put on the Internet. It certainly looks like a simple case of dirty tricks by the U.S. Democratic Party. If you keep following links, the gossip gets dirtier and dirtier, and I had to go wash my computer.

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/10/the-bogus-blog-behind-foleys-fall.php

The reporter who broke the story says it was a republican who leaked it to him.


ABC correspondent Brian Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.

“I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/03/washington/03media.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

TomF

Time for everyone to do his or her homework. Please read the article included with my first posting on the thread topic. It is posted on 03-10-2006 at 09:18.

Sgt. Sensible

TomF wrote:

Time for everyone to do his or her homework. Please read the article included with my first posting on the thread topic. It is posted on 03-10-2006 at 09:18.

Time for you to stop trying to patronise people who have been patient enough to put up with your frankly disturbingly weird defence of a paedophile.

How about answering Bonkeys questions?

Would you have any issues with your children receiving this type of attention from an adult male in the workplace whilst underage? Would you have any issues with said adult's coworkers and seniors no taking action to put a stop activities immediately once they became aware of them? If and when the adult who was treating your children this way was finally caught, would you want the question of his actions to revolve around the gender or the age of your child?

TomF

This excerpt from a Florida newspaper makes for unsettling reading for those who want to believe that the U.S. Republican Party was involved in a cover-up to protect ex-Rep. Foley (and his seat in Congress). It also makes good reading for those of us who are nearly certain the huge furor is strictly U.S. Democratic Party election year orchestration. (You can fool some the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.)

And it might be a good idea to go back and read my earlier posts to see if there is evidence that I was defending Foley. He is a sad case, and certainly didn't belong in such high office, but finding reason to remove him would mean having evidence (like the now-available instant messages).

St. Petersburg [Florida] Times, by Neil Brown, Executive Editor
...

"Which brings us to the Mark Foley scandal.

Last November, we chose not to publish a story about how the Republican congressman sent cryptic, though arguably inappropriate, e-mails to a former congressional page from Louisiana.

Let's be clear: The e-mails we obtained were not at all sexually explicit. As Tom Fiedler, my counterpart at the Miami Herald, said, they were 'ambiguous.' Further, the page had provided Foley with his e-mail address voluntarily and had acknowledged in an e-mail to a friend that he initially had no suspicions about the congressman. We later tracked down the page, who told us that the e-mails made him uncomfortable. We also interviewed another page who had received e-mails from Foley and found nothing inappropriate.

Still, the Louisiana page had forwarded the e-mails to a congressional staff member asking for guidance. The Foley exchange - including the request for a 'pic'- seemed creepy. Was I being paranoid? the page wanted to know.

Our decision not to publish was a close call. We decided to hold off. Why?

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.

And we couldn't come up with a strong enough case to explain to a teenager's parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter, we needed to make their son the subject of a story - and the incredible scrutiny that would surely follow.

It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the goods.

We paid for that restraint last week when we got scooped by an anonymous blogger - not a reporter - who posted the ambiguous e-mails on a Web site titled Stop Sexual Predators. When Foley's election opponent seized on it and called for an investigation, ABCnews.com ran with the story. That provoked former pages to come forward with the stunning set of sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's resignation and a tidal wave of political fallout.

Nobody in the news business likes to get scooped. We're not happy about it. We're also not alone.

The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one."
...
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Columns/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml

lostexpectation

if it came from the a democrat initially then good for them... bout time it came out,


cbs news asid last night that , foleys was known to be gay and so was the Rep assistants that worked with them and went to hasert about foley I presume hasert isn't a bear

this just shows this whole problem these rightist have with coming out, I guess its far from peadophilia but it is predatory, and shows the standards of all the **** going on on capital hill, what those pages must see.

couple of the aides that told hasert about it have resigned,

bonkey

TomF wrote:

It also makes good reading for those of us who are nearly certain the huge furor is strictly U.S. Democratic Party election year orchestration.

At a guess, one would find a strong correlation between this group and :

- those who believed the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honourable, truth-telling, well-informed people
- those who believed Rove didn't leak the information he subsequently has admitted to leaking
- those who believed the Administration when it claimed the CIA told them it had a "slam dunk" case about WMDs
- those who believe Bush didn't dodge the draft
- those who are staunch Republican supporters

Its hardly surprising that an article which defends the Republicans and casts the Democrats in a bad light makes "good reading" for you TomF. The real issue is whether or not its a balanced or fair article.

For example, does it mention that Foley's aide - a man hardly likely to be a Democrat, I'm sure we both agree - has gone on record saying
that more than three years ago he had "more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest level of the House of Representatives asking them to intervene."

Trying to cast the issue as a smear campaign is a little bit pointless if the allegations are true. So far, that appears to be the case and it would seem that the Republicans aren't complaining that they're being lied about, but rather that its unfair that someone - allegedly the Democrats - revealed the truth.

Well, when I say pointless, I mean that the only thing it will do is give staunch Republican supporters a flag to rally round so they can feel victimised by the truth.

A quick search of google reveals that there are numerous articles from various Republicans coming out and making comments to the effect that they raised flags / were aware of at least part of this for 3, 5 or (in at least one article I read today) 10 years. More articles suggest that the rank-and-file Republicans are extremely dissatisfied with the whole affair.

I'm guessing, though, that we're expected to believe that these Republicans are somehow part of a Democrat smear campaign too, or that all the news articles making such claims are nothing but libel.

And it might be a good idea to go back and read my earlier posts to see if there is evidence that I was defending Foley.

That depends on how we interpret the word "defending", TomF. If we take the same type of interpretation that says "alerting the authorities to this type of behaviour" is somehow a smear campaign, then trying to cast Foley as "a strange man", and make out that the major issue is apparently that he'sgay....then yes, you were defending him.

If you'd like to stick to the conventional interpretation of the english language , then I'd say "after you, sir".

You're not fooling anyone, any of the time.

Diogenes

TomF wrote:

This excerpt from a Florida newspaper makes for unsettling reading for those who want to believe that the U.S. Republican Party was involved in a cover-up to protect ex-Rep. Foley (and his seat in Congress). It also makes good reading for those of us who are nearly certain the huge furor is strictly U.S. Democratic Party election year orchestration. (You can fool some the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.)

I'm sorry but what? The article you include doesn't so much as include the word's "democratic" and "party." You can keep trying to make this smoke and Mirrors nonsense going but it would be helpful if what you linked in any remote way support your assertions.

Our decision not to publish was a close call. We decided to hold off. Why?

I led deliberations with our top editors, and we concluded that we did not have enough substantiated information to reach beyond innuendo.

We were unsuccessful in getting members of Congress who were involved in the matter or those who administer the House page corps to acknowledge any problem with Foley's ambiguous e-mail or to suggest that they thought it was worth pursuing.

And we couldn't come up with a strong enough case to explain to a teenager's parents why, over their vehement pleas to drop the matter, we needed to make their son the subject of a story - and the incredible scrutiny that would surely follow.

It added up to this conclusion: To print what we had seemed to be a shortcut to taint a member of Congress without actually having the goods.

We paid for that restraint last week when we got scooped by an anonymous blogger - not a reporter - who posted the ambiguous e-mails on a Web site titled Stop Sexual Predators. When Foley's election opponent seized on it and called for an investigation, ABCnews.com ran with the story. That provoked former pages to come forward with the stunning set of sexually explicit instant messages that led to Foley's resignation and a tidal wave of political fallout.

Nobody in the news business likes to get scooped. We're not happy about it. We're also not alone.

The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one."
...

Where is there any evidence that this is democratic party orchestration!

The fact remains that the republican speaker of the house knew about the concerns about Foley for over a year and did nothing about it, until the scandal errupted

The first in the line of fire is the House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, whose office knew about Mr Foley's behaviour for nearly a year but did not seek an investigation until after the damaging email had become public.

Mr Hastert's political career was hanging in the balance yesterday, with the Speaker admitting: "If I thought it could help the party, I would consider it."

In the last 48 hours Mr Hastert has been attacked by Republicans worried about keeping their seats. Democrats have already begun to use the Foley scandal in TV ads. "We have to do something different, more dramatic," congressman Ray LaHood told reporters. "This is a political mess and what we have done so far is not working. Somebody has to take responsibility for this. It is on our watch."

The momentum for Mr Hastert's departure gathered pace on Tuesday, when his deputy, the House majority leader, John Boehner, told a radio station in Ohio that he believed the Speaker had had primary responsibility to deal with Mr Foley when he first learned of his activities. "I believe I talked to the Speaker and he told me it had been taken care of," Mr Boehner said. "And my position is [that] it's in his corner, it's his responsibility."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1887797,00.html

And it might be a good idea to go back and read my earlier posts to see if there is evidence that I was defending Foley.

TomF wrote:

Foley ruckus is much more than a cynical exploitation of what that strange man was doing with Congressional pages,

Foley's relatively innocuous emails to the youths

Defend outright no, downplay most certainly.

He is a sad case, and certainly didn't belong in such high office, but finding reason to remove him would mean having evidence (like the now-available instant messages).

I'm sorry in 1998 a fortune was spent by the republican congress investigating Clinton over his affair with Lewinsky, based on a blue dress stain and a taped phone call with a third party. in Less than six years later, you're saying it's acceptable not to even bother to attempt to investigate allegations of paedophilia by a republican senator, when there is evidence of a level of misconduct which supports the allegations. The hypocracy is simply staggering.

lostexpectation

TomF wrote:

This excerpt from a Florida newspaper makes for unsettling reading for those who want to believe that the U.S. Republican Party was involved in a cover-up to protect ex-Rep. Foley (and his seat in Congress). It also make
The Miami Herald had the same e-mails. In Washington, several other mainstream news organizations apparently have had the ambiguous e-mails (which had been making their way around the Capitol corridors for some months), yet took a pass on publication. That's absolutely not an excuse from our perspective. It simply reflects that our judgment, agree or disagree, was not an unusual one."
...
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Columns/Why_the_Times_didn_t_.shtml

i think it speaks to the boys club between capital hil operators, journos too, apparently it was well known since he first came to congress 11 yrs ago, so many knew apparently getting over-friendly with 16-18 yr olds is ok in congress.

RedPlanet

It's not the first time the St. Petersburg Times quashed a story.
I'm sure news companies do it all the time.
I happen to be familiar with 2 stories regarding Gulf War I (Iraq/Kuwait) where they didn't run the story til much later (when it was "safe").

Sorry, make that 1 story.
Other news companies also didn't run with the story at time.
From the archives:
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/50586247.html?dids=50586247:50586247&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jan+6%2C+1991&author=JEAN+HELLER&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&desc=Photos+don%27t+show+buildup

Hobbes

tbh, I get the impression TomF doesn't even read the thread. Just ignores anything that rebuts what hes just posted and posts more of the same crap again from another source.

bonkey

The apparent strategy would be to redefine the debate into a question of whether or not this is strategically-timed elctioneering, rather than into one of who did what, who knew about it and for how long.

If the leak was Democrat orchestrated, then there is a genuine question to be asked in terms of which Democrats knew how much, and for how long. Of course, a question like this is independant of who leaked the story, and really shouldn't be put in partisan terms at all.

The distinction should be made, however, that the Democrats would only ever be in a position to do anything once in possession of proof positive that something was going on. The Republicans, on the other hand, should have the ability and responsibility to ensure that their members are behaving, and to investigate (internally) any credible allegations...of which there appear to have been many for a long time.

Somehow, though, I can't see the Republican Election machine taking the "they're just as guilty as we are for not reporting it cause they knew about it too" stance. Admitting culpability - even if only to share it - just doesn't seem the in thing.

TomF

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton did not resign when his dalliance next to a sink in the Oval Office of the White House with a young woman on her knees was found out. I'm not sure of the legalities of what they were doing in relation to office hours, but it certainly disgraced Clinton. He also didn't admit to being a sexual predator or a sex addict although he certainly seemed to many reasonable people to be both, and he therefore didn't admit himself to any kind of a clinic to have his problems treated. Even the impeachment didn't go through, so the House of Representatives, his judge and jury, lost their collective nerve and he survived--although Hillary may have bounced a few more heavy glass ash trays off his forehead in the days and months that followed. Where is Bill now? Collecting mucho dinero while dispensing what dispensing his brand of wisdom and lots of hot air around the world.

In Foley's case, now I am reading claims that the particular page in question may have been "of age" when the instant messages were exchanged. If that is true, then it could be that Foley didn't actually committ paedophilia. We'll just have to see what the actual truth of the matter is.

Getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel, Foley confessed sending the instant messages, apologised to the House and his constituents, resigned his office and admitted himself to an alcohol treatment facility. The last is the usual maneuver after your lawyer takes you aside to give advice, it appears.

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

I like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the U.S. Democratic Party, and, as with the laughable episode of the Valerie Plame "outing", I think we will see this orchestrated attempt sputter out too. Much will depend on how aggressively the Republicans get the true story out.

Sgt. Sensible

Having an affair with a 22 year old woman is no different to being a paedophile apparently.

Only desperate.

Diogenes

TomF wrote:

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton did not resign when his dalliance next to a sink in the Oval Office of the White House with a young woman on her knees was found out.

Are you serious, you're trying to claim that Clinton isn't honourable because he didn't resign after he didn't commit a crime, but Foley is honourable after he broke a law that he helped draft. A law to protect children from online sexual predators.

I'm not sure of the legalities of what they were doing in relation to office hours,

You are trolling now aren't you?

Theres no law aganist "office hours nookie"

but it certainly disgraced Clinton. He also didn't admit to being a sexual predator or a sex addict although he certainly seemed to many reasonable people to be both, and he therefore didn't admit himself to any kind of a clinic to have his problems treated.

I'm sorry these "reasonable people". Would they be the same "reasonable people" who claim that Foley's relationship with the kids is the kids fault cause they egg'd him on?

Even the impeachment didn't go through, so the House of Representatives, his judge and jury, lost their collective nerve and he survived--although Hillary may have bounced a few more heavy glass ash trays off his forehead in the days and months that followed. Where is Bill now? Collecting mucho dinero while dispensing what dispensing his brand of wisdom and lots of hot air around the world.

Yes yes that lazy money grubing Clinton.

Where is he now...Hmmmm
http://www.clintonglobalinitiative.org

At the end of the conference, each member is then asked to make a commitment which is original, specific, and measurable. Last year this meeting generated more than $2.5 billion in commitments that are already improving countless lives.

In Foley's case, now I am reading claims that the particular page in question may have been "of age" when the instant messages were exchanged. If that is true, then it could be that Foley didn't actually committ paedophilia. We'll just have to see what the actual truth of the matter is.

I'm sure you can point us to where those claims are being made? Repuitable news organised no doubt.

Getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel, Foley confessed sending the instant messages, apologised to the House and his constituents, resigned his office and admitted himself to an alcohol treatment facility. The last is the usual maneuver after your lawyer takes you aside to give advice, it appears.

It usually is necessary to find a place to hid until it blows over.

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

Not condone, just try and downplay it's significance, while implying it's related to being gay,.

I like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the U.S. Democratic Party, and, as with the laughable episode of the Valerie Plame "outing", I think we will see this orchestrated attempt sputter out too. Much will depend on how aggressively the Republicans get the true story out.

You would like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the Democratic mainly because it distracts attention from the real issue, how long the republican party covered up Foley's behaviour.

RedPlanet

If this Foley character didn't do anything wrong then why is he apologising and why resign?

sceptre

TomF wrote:

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

Ah that's not fair Tom. I wouldn't say your posts indicate that you condone it, just conveniently ignore it while trying to misdirect the audience so you can pull the phantom gay rabbit out of the hat in order that reasonable and rightly concerned people feel homophobic as opposed to the little disappointed that we should and do feel that Republican party supporters, of which you may be one, reckon paedophilia isn't such a bad thing as long as the right people stay running things.

Hobbes

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Having an affair with a 22 year old woman is no different to being a paedophile apparently.

Only desperate.

According to Fox News she was only 19. lol

Or even funnier is Ann Coulter actually defending Foley and calling him "a nice guy", you can see even O'Reilly squirming on the fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XukNaP7H87o

lostexpectation

yeah 16 v 22 big difference and apparently he's a demo to both fox and ap, and to ap hasert is a D aswell, apparently O'Reilly show is pre-recorded and they had plenty of time to fix that 'mistake' I mean come on thats just crazy...

he also turned up at the pages dorm room drunk...

and he gone to rehab and other behaviorial problems in Clearwater 'the town scientolgy built' and the HQ for de-gaying programs!!!!

its obvious that plenty of dems and aides knew about this too, but didn't want to say, didn't have evidence,like the papers... but if they really tried.

Diogenes

lostexpectation wrote:

yeah 16 v 22 big difference and apparently he's a demo to both fox and ap, and to ap hasert is a D aswell, apparently O'Reilly show is pre-recorded and they had plenty of time to fix that 'mistake' I mean come on thats just crazy...

Hmmmm Generally Aston's and graphics are added live on air as the show is broadcast. Not to say the mistake isn't bloody telling. Though the "D" and the "R" keys are close by one another keyboard.

It's still bloody convenient though.

oscarBravo

Diogenes wrote:

You are trolling now aren't you?

Accusations of trolling are against the charter. Don't do that, thanks.

bonkey

TomF wrote:

If I remember correctly, Bill Clinton did not resign when his dalliance next to a sink in the Oval Office of the White House with a young woman on her knees was found out. I'm not sure of the legalities of what they were doing in relation to office hours, but it certainly disgraced Clinton.

The legalities are clear. What they did was 100% unquestionably and totally within the law....right up to the point where Clinton lied under oath.

He also didn't admit to being a sexual predator or a sex addict although he certainly seemed to many reasonable people

He seemed that way, did he. gosh, well then, he should have admitted it.

After all, Foley has admitted he's gay. Its not because he is gay, but just because he seemed that way to some reasonable people. He's also admitted to having been molested as a child and having alcohol problems. None of this is because its true either, its becuse some reasonable people think it might be the case.

If the point isn't clear yet.....on what planet does some unqualified opinion of some unspecified group of people of undetermined "reasonableness" qualify as grounds to suggest that an admission of allegations is warranted.

In Foley's case, now I am reading claims that the particular page in question may have been "of age" when the instant messages were exchanged.

I claim the page was 6 eyars old when it happened.

See, now you can also say you've read claims that the page was 6 years old when it happened.

If that is true, then it could be that Foley didn't actually committ paedophilia.

Correct. If that is true, then it could be the case. Of course, if my claims are true then it could be the case that Foley molested a 6 year old.

In case its not obvious to anyone at this point, I am in no way suggesting that my claims are true. In fact, I'll admit that I made them up on the spot here. They're complete fiction and I don't even have grounds to suspect anything of the sort happened.

However....having made up and posted such utter fiction you have now read claims to that effect.

TomF wants you to believe that him having read claims (and I'm sure he has read them) means there is reasonable grounds to consider them true. I'm trying to show that having read claims has little or nothing to do with the underlying truth.

We'll just have to see what the actual truth of the matter is.

Alternately, while we do that, you could supply the evidence of where you read this stuff, comment on how credible you find the sources etc. so that people would have a basis on which to form a credible opinion of their own rather than just having to rely on your say-so.

Getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel, Foley confessed sending the instant messages, apologised to the House and his constituents, resigned his office and admitted himself to an alcohol treatment facility.

No, thats not getting back to the rapidly diverging parallel at all. Instead, it is once again removing us from the issue of who knew what, and for how long.

Actually, I do read the thread, but so much of what I read seems to be extreme reactions suggesting I condone paedophilia that I just don't bother replying to it.

Tell you what TomF. You post and condemn the man for his behaviour towards minors and I will follow up and apologise for treating you harshly for previously not condemning same.

I'm sure anyone else who's been harsh on you in this thread will also do likewise.

Similarly, if you'd like to say that condemnation should be issued to anyone from any party who can be shown to have rested on information about this problem instead of acting, I'll admit that my claims of your having clearly-Republican-favouring tendencies here are also mistaken.




I like the idea of focusing on whether the furore is orchestrated by the U.S. Democratic Party, and, as with the laughable episode of the Valerie Plame "outing", I think we will see this orchestrated attempt sputter out too. Much will depend on how aggressively the Republicans get the true story out.[/QUOTE]