He's right ProfJohn. I've called you out numerous times about your retarded "But Clinton!" tactics. Just STFU already, everyone recognizes it for what it is: LAME.
He's right ProfJohn. I've called you out numerous times about your retarded "But Clinton!" tactics. Just STFU already, everyone recognizes it for what it is: LAME.Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33 YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY TRYING TO OBFUSCATE THIS FALLOUT BY SLYLY AND SUBTLY TRYING TO BRING FOCUS BACK ONTO THE DEMOCRATS AS USING THIS TO THEIR POLTICAL ADVANTAGE AFTER CONTINUALLY CALLING OUT CLINTON AS A LIAR AFTER THE REPUBLICANS DID THE SAME THING. HYPOCRITE.
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: sandorski
Why would people be upset more about the timing rather than the coverup?
Because it is an indication that the Democrats involved are as morally bankrupt as the Republicans who were involved in the 'cover-up'. If democrats waited until just before elections to publicise the details of Foley's indiscretion - timing the revelation for maximum impact at the polls - then they are guilty of their own kind of cover up.
Uhhhh, too late.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Foley did something morally repugnant and you're upset about the timing of the revelation. Like I said, you're not going to win this one. Sorry. There is no way to defend this without looking like a mindless right wing robot.
Yes, Foley's behavior is inexcusable. Now, get over your pathetic attempts to sidestep the other, larger issue -- Whether Dennis Hastert and other top Republican leaders knew about Foley and, instead of acting to protect juvenile House pages from the possiblity that Foley was a sexually predatory pedophiliac, they tried to cover it up to avoid the negative publicty they were right to expect if the story got out.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Harvey get over your worthless indignation, I have said many times in this thread that what Foley did was morally inexcusable and that if he broke any laws he should and will face the consequences.
Resign, Mr. Speaker
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
October 3, 2006
The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened.
Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. Moreover, all available evidence suggests that the Republican leadership did not share anything related to this matter with any Democrat.
Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. Sexual predators come in all shapes, sizes and partisan hues, in institutions within and without government. When predators are found they must be dealt with, forcefully and swiftly. This time the offender is a Republican, and Republicans can't simply "get ahead" of the scandal by competing to make the most noise in calls for a full investigation. The time for that is long past.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
A special, one-day congressional session should elect a successor. We nominate Rep. Henry Hyde, also of Illinois, the chairman of the House International Relations Committee whose approaching retirement ensures that he has no dog in this fight. He has a long and principled career, and is respected on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Hyde would preside over the remaining three months of the 109th Congress in a manner best suited for a full and exhaustive investigation until a new speaker for the 110th Congress is elected in January, who can assume responsibility for the investigation.
Look, a voice of reason from someone on the left... except the last line of courseOriginally posted by: Craig234
As much as I want to see the Hastert resign (remember, he took office because of a republican sex scandal, too), it's not yet clear to me he should.
I'll wait for the full set of facts to become clearer, but so far, I think there are much clearer scandals Hastert should be accountable for.
Originally posted by: Craig234
As much as I want to see the Hastert resign (remember, he took office because of a republican sex scandal, too), it's not yet clear to me he should.
If I understand correctly, the IM's only recently came to light (last week).
The reaction, including from the public that I've seen, to the e-mails was 'so what'? They were sent with the sorts of questions you would not treat as those of a menace, that I saw.
The ones I saw seem appropriate for there to have been no more than an informal chat.
We don't need our society to get to where a congressman asking a former page what their hobbies are needs to be a crime.
AP story"Our decision at the time was ... that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. "Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."
Miami Herald Op-Ed on FoleySome newspapers -- including this one -- knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a ''cover up'' of Mr. Foley's activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political. But the discovery of other, more explicit, messages and confusion over who knew what and when raise questions that require answers -- preferably, under oath and soon.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well thank you for at least making an attempt to understand my point.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
John... I understand where you're trying to go... but you're not going to win this one.
I get the feeling that as more of the "back story" gets out more and more people will be disgusted not only with Foley, but with the people who timed the leak of this story for political reasons.
Think of it this way... if I knew that Democratic candidate X was having sex with his under age neighbor and I waited to release that information until right before the election am I not guilty of committing a crime?
What if the charges are true that this web site was created in July for the SOLE purpose of outing Foley, there is certainly evidence of this, and these people knew Foley was sending out sexual IMs since that time. And during those three months, July August and September, Foley went out and actually had sex with one of these pages? Then what? Gee sorry... we knew he was sending out IMs, but we didn't want to tell anyone until the last minute so we could capitalize on the publicity?
IF these people sat on this story for 3 months then I am as disgusted with their actions as I am with Foley's.
Districts in which Republicans have effectively walked off the field include Foley's own in South Florida. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a radio interview with conservative commentator Sean Hannity that the party's replacement candidate is all but doomed. Because of ballot procedures in Florida, "to vote for this candidate, you have to vote for Mark Foley," Boehner said. "How many people are going to hold their nose to do that?"
Is there any doubt in a reasonable person's mind that if the Herald had corroborating evidence they would have chosen to do a story?"Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."
Efforts by The Washington Post to reach the boy were unsuccessful. But he told the St. Petersburg Times last November: "I thought it was very inappropriate. After the one about the picture, I decided to stop e-mailing him back." The Times, which did not disclose the teenager's name, did not publish his comments until yesterday.
Republicans... DemocratsOriginally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Well thank you for at least making an attempt to understand my point.Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
John... I understand where you're trying to go... but you're not going to win this one.
I get the feeling that as more of the "back story" gets out more and more people will be disgusted not only with Foley, but with the people who timed the leak of this story for political reasons.
Think of it this way... if I knew that Democratic candidate X was having sex with his under age neighbor and I waited to release that information until right before the election am I not guilty of committing a crime?
What if the charges are true that this web site was created in July for the SOLE purpose of outing Foley, there is certainly evidence of this, and these people knew Foley was sending out sexual IMs since that time. And during those three months, July August and September, Foley went out and actually had sex with one of these pages? Then what? Gee sorry... we knew he was sending out IMs, but we didn't want to tell anyone until the last minute so we could capitalize on the publicity?
IF these people sat on this story for 3 months then I am as disgusted with their actions as I am with Foley's.
Blaming the Democrats is disingenuous. First of all, there hasn't been any proof that Democrats knew of the explicit IM and withheld that information and leaked them now for political benefit. Everything I've seen shows that the emails WHICH the Republican leadership knew about months ago, were finally released by ABCNews. If someone leaked those emails ... then I say ABOUT TIME. Republicans knew of the emails and did next to nothing. When the emails came to light, ABCNews then obtained the IMs. Who do you think most likeley had the IMs - Foley and the pages and probably the ISPs. Perhaps, the pages sent them to ABCNews. Perhaps, the government was spying on people's IMs. Who knows. The fact is that Republicans didn't want to know or worst, they covered for one of their own instead of trying to protect underaged children. This is the story.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One of the newspapers who knew about the e-mail responds.
AP story"Our decision at the time was ... that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. "Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."
and from the Miami Paper
Miami Herald Op-Ed on FoleySome newspapers -- including this one -- knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a ''cover up'' of Mr. Foley's activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political. But the discovery of other, more explicit, messages and confusion over who knew what and when raise questions that require answers -- preferably, under oath and soon.
It seems that other news organizations were also given copies of the e-mails and did nothing. How many people have to have known about the e-mails before we can safely bury the "cover up" story?
PrevaricatorJohn -- Get a clue. Here's one -- Monica was an adult. Foley was preying on minors. But that's just the underlying crime. It quickly mushroomed beyond that to yet another example of the Republican ethical cesspool in Washinton. If this were Democrats, you'd be puking up a storm about it. And to put the shoe on the other foot, if Democrats ARE involved in covering up Foley's acts, or any other serious crimes, they should be roasted as much as Hastert and anyone else proven to have been involved in covering it up.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
BTW: There were lots of editorials calling for Clinton to resign and he ignored them, why should Hastert all of a sudden heed the call to resign when he was not even involved in the story?
You can point fingers. blow smoke and break wind any direction you want, but history continues to show that covering up of a major crime can be as significant as the underlying crime, itself. Ask Richard Nixon, or Bill Clinton, or Scooter Libby, or any of the rats scurrying to get away from the stench of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:Michigan congressman: Republicans mishandled Foley matter
October 3, 2006
By KEN THOMAS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON -- A Michigan congressman who is the only Democrat on the House Page Board said Republicans badly mishandled concerns last year about e-mails sent by former Rep. Mark Foley to teenage pages.
Rep. Dale Kildee, who has served on the board since 1985, said he was upset that the board?s leader, Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., met with Foley last year without consulting with him.
?We?ve always been nonpartisan ? not even bipartisan ? nonpartisan, and to be excluded from a meeting of such importance where the safety of the pages was such in question, I found that really outrageous,? Kildee said.
Shimkus and the House clerk met with Foley in the fall of 2005 about e-mails sent to one page. Foley assured them he was only acting as a mentor to the boy. Shimkus ordered Foley to end contact with the boy and Foley agreed.
Kildee said if he had been notified, he would have sought an official meeting of the board last year so there would have been minutes taken during the discussions.
?The Page Board has to assume a greater responsibility and not have a few handle matters like this,? said Kildee, a former high school Latin teacher. ?These things should come before the entire Page Board, whose responsibility is to make sure the children are safe.?
?We have an obligation to those kids. They?re 16 years old, they?re away from home, and we should stand as ?in loco parentis,?? or in the place of the parent, he said.
Kildee said he didn?t learn about the allegations against Foley until late Friday, when the Florida congressman announced his resignation after the disclosure that he sent suggestive electronic messages to teenage boys working as House pages.
Kildee said he?s never previously been excluded from a discussion regarding the page program.
The decision by Shimkus to have the private meeting with Foley and the clerk last year was ?a serious, serious mistake and a serious breach of our role in trying to protect the pages,? Kildee said.
Did you even read your own links? ProfJohn, there are multiple emails to MULTIPLE pages. The emails to the page that started this whole recent mess are innocuous. And several media knew of those innocuous emails. In that point, you are correct.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
One of the newspapers who knew about the e-mail responds.
...
AP story
and from the Miami Paper
...
Miami Herald Op-Ed on Foley
It seems that other news organizations were also given copies of the e-mails and did nothing. How many people have to have known about the e-mails before we can safely bury the "cover up" story?
Some newspapers -- including this one -- knew of this message as well and did not find it worthy of a news story because it seemed innocuous. Thus, Democratic charges of a ''cover up'' of Mr. Foley's activities by the Republican House leadership seem not only premature but crassly political. But the discovery of other, more explicit, messages and confusion over who knew what and when raise questions that require answers -- preferably, under oath and soon.
I don't think the leak was by an elected member of the Democratic Party.Originally posted by: chowderhead
Blaming the Democrats is disingenuous. First of all, there hasn't been any proof that Democrats knew of the explicit IM and withheld that information and leaked them now for political benefit. Everything I've seen shows that the emails WHICH the Republican leadership knew about months ago, were finally released by ABCNews. If someone leaked those emails ... then I say ABOUT TIME. Republicans knew of the emails and did next to nothing. When the emails came to light, ABCNews then obtained the IMs. Who do you think most likeley had the IMs - Foley and the pages and probably the ISPs. Perhaps, the pages sent them to ABCNews. Perhaps, the government was spying on people's IMs. Who knows. The fact is that Republicans didn't want to know or worst, they covered for one of their own instead of trying to protect underaged children. This is the story.
Originally posted by: dullard
Breaking news:
Foley interrupted a 2003 vote on the House floor to have cyber-sex with a former page.