Now or in January, when Pelosi takes over. Now would at least prevent him being humiliated in front of Democrats.

Sounds about right. How this A-hole could go to town meetings telling parents to protect their kids from cyber pedo's...

While knowing about foley...

Is beyond hypocrisy.

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.

Wow! Like we really think this will happen.

I don't remember any of that, I must of misspoke!

Well, we certainly see where the repofundies get their morals, acorn doesn't fall very far from the tree says the President and GOP leader.

Et tu Washington Times?

You have to wonder if this will convince the remaining rightnuts to come out of the bunker with their hands up.

When the hard right took control of the House of Representatives in 1994, they acted like they believed their reign would last a thousand years.

Looks like it will end in twelve.

"Hastert Must Resign?!"

Squeeze me, is this even a question?

Here, in case anybody needs any "clarity"...

(Spud disappears offstage fer a jiffy (technically 1/100th of a second) and re-appears in the guise of his sometimes Alter-ego Captaaaaain Obviouuuus!!!

The guy who invented the KISS principle!!

Able to explain painfully obvious stuff with mind numbing exactitude!!

Capt Obvious clears his throat...

a-hem...

HASTERT MUST RESIGN!!

(a slight bow and Capt Obvious zips off-stage Spud immediately re-enters)

Ha! Spud luffs playing Captain Obvious!

Fer one thing you get to wear the Captains Hat, that's pretty cool right there, sez Spud!

Be Well.

PS: If Spud actually has to explain WHY Hastert Must Resign to anyone then Spud feels very sad fer the folk who ask that question.

Cos Spud will!

Spud knows he won't have to explain the WHY to Alex&rite...

"Is beyond hypocrisy."

Strewth!

Be Well.

PS: Realworld calls, blogworld recedes, Spud exits the DR the way he come in
stage left.

Ha! Spud thought of an even more low-brow approach...

Ugh! Wot's that smell?

A HazTURD?

"Fer gawdsake, how about a courtesy flush?"

Be Well.

PS Going, going, gone.

The Times is right. Hastert has to go, and be replaced by someone who will clean house, slash spending, and let conservatives run things for a change.

"someone who will clean house, slash spending..."

Yeah, let's get one of those Republicans who's led the way voting against the record pork, let's see, there's...

...no, he voted for the deficits...wait, there's...

...oh, no...he voted for the deficits, too.

Oops....

"...and let conservatives run things for a change."

Good. Then we'll get a real gay-bashing bill, won't we?

let conservatives run things for a change.

Sorry, you've had your chance, and broken damn near every bad record there is. Boy, the way ring wingers talk you'd think there wasn't a single true conservative on Earth...they always need to "run things for a change"

ring = right. Keyboard hiccup. Or human...hard to tell.

hastert and foley..another win/win for the GOP

Come on, Bush backers, make a stand behind Bush and his spokesman.

Tony Snow said this was "simply naughty emails" so go on record now for backing the White House (in this time of war).

Do you agree with the White House that this was "simply naughty emails"? Because if you do, then your opinion on Foley and Hastert and everyting will be perfectly clear, and you can save yourself a lot of opinionating later on.

Just state clearly if you back the official White House position on this matter. Thanks.

This scandal is like an election time bomb waiting to go off. I guarantee the facts are just gonna get worse and worse.

It's too bad the american public couldn't get this worked up over the torture bill...

So THIS is the big Dem issue for the election? Go ahead and put all your eggs into THAT basket, Demophiles. November is a harsh teacher, and you people just won't learn. Can't wait.

Hastert will not resign, he's a memeber of the Republican Taliban!
He obviously supports keeping pedophiles secret.

Ha! Spud luffs playing Captain Obvious!

Fer one thing you get to wear the Captains Hat, that's pretty cool right there, sez Spud!

Posted by dethspud at 2006-10-03 12:14 AM

Coolest of wings on the Captain's Hat, Tater -- or do those classify as antennae?

Denny "Hot Plate" Hastert didn't do anything about Foley because the gelatinous douchebag couldn't summon the willpower to put down his fork.

Holy Moley, the Washington Times no less...

I am very curious though....Do people really think that child molestation is something NEW? We have become incensed as a people about the state of affairs today, but this is not new, and this sort of thing has been happening since people were on earth....

I wonder if Foley is going to end up on the State list of Sex Offenders on the web?

But WHY didn't the leadership do more?? Foley was asked about his sexuality in 2003 and choose to withdraw from a Senate race back then...

The Republicans are DRUNK with power...And they didn't want to lose a seat, they would rather have a dangerous man shadowing their Pages...Because the waited, they will almost certainly lose this seat....NOT VERY SMART politically is it...

Hastert won't resign.

You can see the buck passing already in play.

Should he resign??

Absolutely.

And before all the republicans start talking about how this outcry is only being done out of political partisanship, because of the upcoming election, let's keep in mind that there was a reason the the democratic senator on the Page committee was the only one of the three that wasn't told about Foley last year!

You don't think THAT wasn't done out of partisanship to keep republicans in office????

Face it folks, there was indeed a cover up!

"Do people really think that child molestation is something NEW?"

First of all, Foley is not being suspected of "child molestation". He's a child preditor at this point.

Secondly, just because child molestation has been around forever, doesn't mean it shouldn't be stopped. It doesn't mean that we should expect those elected to office especially, not to be molesting children (again...Foley hasn't done that), and it certainly doesn't mean that as a nation, it should be tolerated.

I don't understand why you asked that question.

gelatinous

Funny flag for using my 2nd favorite word.

much as i dispise pedophiles and enablers ...i also don't like to judge people before all the facts are in. NYT article says fed law enforcement officials said FBI was given the emails in recent months but found insufficient grounds to open criminal a investigation. then you have got the whole homosexual enchilada to deal with...very touchy. that said.... hastert should have dragged the perverts ass in front of the ethics committee....very bad judgement. but i will still give the old rolly poly the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are in...something most of you libs+aclu give to the most craven of society!

lisa...and you don't think this realease has been politically times???that woodards book ...pbs +bif programs about civil right and lynchings...aren't timed???then there are reports that pages egged the pervert on...right now we must pay attention to issues something both sides seem to side step .that said...pedophiles need to be in jail for life!

something most of you libs+aclu give to the most craven of society!

Posted by kerrin57 at 2006-10-03 08:12 AM | Reply

Again with the broad brush Kerrin? This is becoming a pattern for someone who says they don't like doing just that.

Wait for the facts to come in like all the right wing idealouges that called Clinton a rapist and murderer on television and radio?

I heard the transcripts of Foley's IM's with a page.... commenting on how strong his legs were, asking how many times the child masturbated, discussing how many times a week and where he masturbated. Conversing with a child like this is pedophilia. How many more facts do you need? Or are we going to hold off final judgement until after the elections?

To the GOP this is all about damage control and the elections now. I saw Reynolds on tv surrounded by "supporters" with their children. This at an event for a Congressman that has had a part in the coverup of a pedophile stalking the halls of Congress. Now Laura Bush will be making an appearance at one of his fundraisers.... full damage control now. If Laura suddenly cancels... you will know that they have thrown Tom under the bus.

The Rethugs hope that if Hastert resigns it will end the scandal but I think the story has longer legs than that and that there will be more Congressmen involved in the cover up.

""At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include: Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl.""

All will have to go. Tsk. Tsk.
I hope the door doesn't hit them in the ass as they leave.

maybe we can torture him.

then there are reports that pages egged the pervert onPosted by kerrin57

Kerrin, you must be a BIG FAN of
Matt(never met a Dem I didn't hate)Drudge.
Dude, he's a STOOGE for the Repubs.
Yea, I know several 16 yr olds who regularly troll for middle aged men who want to SODOMIZE THEM!Must be true if Matt Drudge says it!!
So if'n he says Camel turds are blue with green stripes, YOU believe it.And all women who don't shave their legs are LESBIANS and you believe it!!

WHAT A MORON!!

It does shift the focus off Iraq - another Rove tactic???

Ousting pedophiles to take the focus off a disasterous war? Sounds like a lose-lose situation.

fed law enforcement officials said FBI was given the emails in recent months but found insufficient grounds to open criminal a investigation.

That would be the FBI run by this executive administration?

Neighbor, please

"I also don't like to judge people before all the facts are in."

Sooooo all of those e mails are a dastardly lib plan to hurt Rep. Pervy just weeks before the elections?

Excellent!!!

Rush's stance is that democrats withheld the information for an October surprise.

not that Hastert knew about the situation last spring and did nothing.

Rush Limbaugh, the pedophile's friend.

The Times is still campaigning. Nothing new here. For months we listened to the media carry on their smear Rove campaign, it turned out to be just liberal lies.

Oh Nooo!! Not the dreaded "liberal lies"!!!

Keep reaching.

"something most of you libs+aclu give to the most craven of society!"

Maybe true, but it's not something repubs give to very many, unless it's one of their own I guess.

"then there are reports that pages egged the pervert on..."

WOW! That's a jaw dropper. I can't believe you're repeating that.

DOGMAN

Uh, Burt,

Go out today, buy a Washington Times, read the news, flip over to editorial/opinion, read that, and then come back to DR and report your findings.

Kinda like a book report, but not exactly.

YEAH!
Makes you wonder what is the real motive behind all these "have lots o babies" congressmen and religious charlatans really are.
Are they really "Erring on the Side of Life" or just making sure they have a steady supply of future adolescent holes to finger?

""The Times is still campaigning. Nothing new here. For months we listened to the media carry on their smear Rove campaign, it turned out to be just liberal lies.""

Oh, Rove is as innocent as the white driven snow. Who do you think you are fooling with stupid statements like "liberal lies?" You just provide an opportunity for us libs to LAUGH OUR ASSES OFF AT YOU!!!

"it turned out to be just liberal lies."

YEAH! Like mean like this one.

"Frist: Taliban Should Be in Afghan Gov't

Monday October 2, 2006 9:16 PM
AP Photo KAB114
By JIM KRANE
Associated Press Writer
QALAT, Afghanistan (AP) - U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.
The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters were too numerous and had too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.
``You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government,'' Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. ``And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful.''
YEAH! I thought we already had won and things were going swimmingly?
Now apparently, the "war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily"?
Gee, will you people hold anyone accountable for the lies this time?

Im just wondering who gave the newspapers this info and how long they had the info?...could be interesting yes if a democrat knew about this ,.,,yet chose to hold the info till election time,,,that would make that dem as culpable as hastert.....this thing may backfire big on the dems.....

jimmy you are just a little tender aren't ya...i said MOST libs which i think is right on...now that said i would not say most dems...i was one until i was thirty five. lived in a small town ...when i went in to vote they said ""so your the democrat"...even voted for clinton the first time!

"could be interesting yes if a democrat knew about this ,.,,yet chose to hold the info till election time,"

YEAH! It's the Democrats fault he didled little boys.

Good One(TM)! Better get to work and make it so!

Acutally, I think it'll be best if they don't resign.
Let them spin till election day, then loose.

Conservative turnout was already looking like it would be low. All it's going to take is a cold drizzle on Nov. 7th, and they're all staying home.

I believe if anyone's thinking of cooking Red Herring for dinner, you're going to need a very big frying pan about now.

There are other stories. Are they in the Times?

Get out the cameras, anglers. We may have a world record here.

"lisa...and you don't think this realease has been politically times?"

Stop playing the republican victim card. It doesn't wash with me.

I don't want to have to waste time posting all the "politically timed" events of republicans.

Geez...it happens on both sides.

Furthermore, Kerrin...the emails came out last year to certain republicans who didn't want it discovered by democrats. You want someone to blame for the timing...blame them! This wouldn't be happening now, if they weren't covering up back then!!

Hastert/Foley: Yakkety yakkety yak yak.

Tenet/Rice: Chirp chirp chirp chirp.

Terrorists... keepin em busy in Iraq so they cant attack us in the heartland.

Child pretitors...Keepin them busy in Washington so they cant attack the heartland...
GOP Iraq/political strategery.

Consistancy...the voters eat it up.
Oldwhiskeysour

""could be interesting yes if a democrat knew about this ,.,,""

You obviously hope that the Dems are as corrupt as the Rethugs but considering that if they had known it would have been ammunition for them they would have used it sooner if they could have. But you can keep hoping. Hell, you can even hope a Democrat will be exposed as a mass murderer like the Bush administration.

Even on the Drudge, the score today stands at Foley 5, Rice 0.

BTW, I heard this morning that when the Rethugs learned about Foley's predilection they warned the REPUBLICAN pages but not the DEMOCRAT pages.
They showed that their political agenda trumps even protecting teenagers from a sexual predator.
I would think that even the most partisan of the righties would now FINALLY admit their party is corrupt to its core.

You know, for all the Republican fear mongering about the idea...the very idea (!) that Nancy Pelosi would become the Speaker and Harry Reid would become the Senate Majority leader...

I honestly look at either of these compared to Denny Hastert and Tele-Dr. Frist and I think these Republicans have the monopoly on what's truly frightening.

Good lord the Repubs have some terrible leadership.

" I heard this morning that when the Rethugs learned about Foley's predilection they warned the REPUBLICAN pages but not the DEMOCRAT pages."

Danni:

Where did you hear this?

I'll tell you what, if this is true, heads should definately roll!

"Good lord the Repubs have some terrible leadership."

In all fairness, DC....democrats don't have much better.

"In all fairness, DC....democrats don't have much better."

I'm not particularly thrilled with the Dem leadership either...especially how they seem to be willing to just lay down and let the criminals in the Bush administration just walk over them. But at least we don't have this kind of rampant corruption as we've seen on the Repub side for years and years.

cheka is quoting limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict.

DC...

I know that it has become almost a sport to decry that the Democrats haven't offered any opposition to most of the neo-con policies and positions, but look at what happens everytime they do. The Democrats have become personal "Wac-A-Moles" for the Republican Party and their squeeching operatives in the media. As soon as one sticks their head out of the hole, along comes the smear machine to smack the shit out of them with some overly simplistic slogan completely putting them on a defensive they can never recover from.

This may be one of the few times the Democrats can just sit back and left the fratricide do the majority of the heavy lifting. Abramoff, Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Foley, and now Hastert have shown America in spades that the Republicans may lead this nation, but they also lead it in corruption and cronyism at the same time. It also shows that Republicans never get caught up in dubious enterprises that have anything to do with improving the lives of citizens, its always about person enrichment on one level or another, ie. selfish interests. The garbage now sits in the living room, and its up to the electorate to take out the trash and throw it into the dump where it belongs.

Yes but rush limbaugh is a drug addict.

Rush Limbaugh is probably not smarter than me, he and I have never taken a comparable IQ test. I would hold my SAT test scores against anyone.

Yes he makes more money than I.

Being a lying sack of shit drug addicted hypocritical bullshit artist that feeds the prejudices of millions of scared and ignorant americans has served him well.

Some of us have higher moral standards than to be a drug addicted liar.

Some of us have higher moral standards than to be a drug addicted liar.

Posted by truthhurts at 2006-10-03 11:13 AM | Reply


Yes, some of us do, but he specifically asked about you twoofy.

for the ignorant,

a writer who uses the word "us" includes I aka me into the descriptor.

If "I" were to be excluded a writer would change "us" to some people or some other people.

You have been educated, go forth and be stupid no more.

I read the updates on this story and the exchanges here and I keep thinking...we are talking about our ELECTED representatives in Washington preying on OUR CHILDREN! People WE elected and trusted have turned out to be a threat to the welfare of our children! And those kids...they are in many cases some of the best and the brightest who qualify for the page program. Their parents send them off to Washington thinking there could be no safer place for them and then to find out that the very people elected to represent them have become THREATS to those kids?! WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! WHY is this going on? How could ANYONE tolerate this all for the sake of a political party? WHAT KIND OF PERSON PLACES POLITICS OVER THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN?! This country truly is falling apart at the seams.

jimmy you are just a little tender aren't ya...i said MOST libs !

Posted by kerrin57 at 2006-10-03 10:01 AM | Reply

No, but you are a little disingenuous.

To say that liberals will give a pass to pedophiles (unlike conservatives... unless it is a member of Congress) is pure lunacy.

Your reactionary response to a situation that should have been exposed by the House leadership years ago is to blame liberals. Brilliant!

Did Rush or Sean provide you with that arguement?

Of course Matt Drudge is now blaming the victims and you eat it up.

Seems to me that you have a bigger problem than painting people with a broad brush.

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?! WHY is this going on? How could ANYONE tolerate this all for the sake of a political party? WHAT KIND OF PERSON PLACES POLITICS OVER THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN?! This country truly is falling apart at the seams.

Posted by DawnGlo at 2006-10-03 12:03 PM | Reply

It is just business as usual for the conservative party. Party politics trump every other concern. I just did not think it would outweigh the welfare of children.

I just did not think it would outweigh the welfare of children.

Why wouldn't they prey on them in Washington when we openly use them as cannon fodder and exterminators in Iraq? Seems part of the overall plan if you ask me: If you're stupid enough to be in the position of being exploited, you deserve the outcome. Perfectly Machiavellian (nee Rovian) isn't it?

Tony,

The Republican goal is to exploit all of America for personal gain.

Starting an illegal war in Iraq is evil.

But this situation brings the Republican party to a new level of evil.

If you're stupid enough to be in the position of being exploited, you deserve the outcome.

Isn't that the reasoning used on the Wal-Mart threads?
The GOP mantra is "Take what you can, when you can."

I learned this was wrong when I was 7. And it is about as far from Jesus as you can get.

Hastert will be on Rush at 133pm eastern time.

Posted by OohRah at 2006-10-03 01:08 PM | Reply

Two Bloviating Cretins getting together. How sweet is that. Maybe they can share Liar stories and have a kumbiyaw together. Wonder if they bring out their Drums and beat them in some ceremonial chant ??

Larry

"If you're stupid enough to be in the position of being exploited, you deserve the outcome."

That is the wonderful thing about being a child, you do not have the life experience to know that you are being exploited.

Keep on blaming the victims.

I suppose you think battered spouses deserve to be beat up and die as well?

Can't You just see it Rush O'Reilly Hastert Savage all of those bloviating Cretins getting together in their Loin Cloths and b ringing out the Ceremonial Drums going Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Neocon Hummmmmmmmmmmm oingo Boingo Hummmmmmmmmm chanting like big Gorillas.

Larry

Oh alright I will read it OohRah. You can email Me through My doohicky thingy.

Larry

"Why wouldn't they prey on them in Washington when we openly use them as cannon fodder and exterminators in Iraq? "


Now THAT's what I call bloggin, baby! Please disregard all truth and use full hyperbole!

"If you're stupid enough to be in the position of being exploited, you deserve the outcome."

Who said this? I couldn't find the person who posted it.

The Majority leader:

"I believe I talked to the speaker, and he told me it had been taken care of," Boehner, an Ohio Republican, told Cincinnati radio station WLW Tuesday. "And ... my position is, it's in his corner, it's his responsibility."

Guess they needed more than 36 hours of silence to get their stories straight because Boehner changed his story Monday and said he was not sure he talked to the speaker, then changed it back because it is all falling apart apparently.

Oh so it has to be sent to Me is that it OohRah ?? I gotycha now.

Larry

Hastert will be on Rush at 133pm eastern time.

Posted by OohRah

rush will be on dominican male hooker at 7.30 pm

something not right about a predator going on a radio show with a guy who just took viagra to the child prostitute capitol of the caribean....now theres some family values hard at work

"I am a Rush 24/7 member, so I have access to his daily words of wisdom."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaHAHAahHAh
aha

So tell us how melting polar ice caps won't change sea levels again?


ROTFLMAO

"If you're stupid enough to be in the position of being exploited, you deserve the outcome."

Who said this? I couldn't find the person who posted it.

I just did not think it would outweigh the welfare of children.

Why wouldn't they prey on them in Washington when we openly use them as cannon fodder and exterminators in Iraq? Seems part of the overall plan if you ask me: If you're stupid enough to be in the position of being exploited, you deserve the outcome. Perfectly Machiavellian (nee Rovian) isn't it?

Posted by tonyroma at 2006-10-03 12:23 PM,/i>


Complete hyperbole, seeking to show how some might view it.

"What inspires the left to say such things about your fellow man?"

the actions of the right

RE Rush:

But because they are liberals, he assigns many things to them, which are not true, but some are hurtful and mean.

What inspires him to say such things about is fellow man?

Oh so there were no actual Limbaugh Letters that You was offering me then huh?? Sounds about like something else LOL

Larry

I just saw a bunch of the 'new' instant messages released via ABC. I'm really more interested than ever in the results of the investigation- there are too many questions- starting with:
- How are we sure that these messages are genuine?, what is the validation process being used?, how can we be sure they weren't altered?
- Why would the pages have saved these messages?, Why would they actually allow these messages to be released with their actual screennames and such embarrassing content?
- How is ABC getting ahold of these?, and from whom?
- How many more messages will be released by the media- and how is the timing of the release being determined?
- Why would a Congressman, who is undoubtedly well aware of the lack of confidentiality associated with such electronic messaging, allow himself to be ensnared in this?
- if the pages involved were uncomfortable with this, why didn't they tell anyone sooner?- why now?- why did they actively carry on these conversations with Foley?- who did they tell, to whom, and when?

Anyone who thinks they can be certain about what this situation is really about is kidding themselves at this point- there are way too many questions. These are 3 year old messages for crying out loud!- there are major corporations that can't produce messages from 3 years ago that they are required by law to produce!- I don't know what the hell is going on here, but this is not unfolding in a way that suggests the situation is not being manipulated by one side or the other. The upcoming investigation (conducted by law enforcement personnel, not the media) will be among the most interesting we've seen in a long time.

When confronted with the First IM's Foley instantly quit. Until then he was just "overly friendly" officially.

So since these are the same source that made Foley high tail it into rehab, I assume they are correct.

Now if ABC has other pages stories, as they say they do, they have not put them out yet as they are still in the validation process apparently. But these from this one source they are dribbling out slowly for maximum effect and maximum hits to their web site as well are probably all real as this source made Foley quit.

It's possible Cody, but I doubt it's that simple. Anything that a politician in this country says or does this close to an election is calculated- granted they're never quite as clever as they think they are, but absolutely everything they say, and the timing of when they say it, is contrived- I don't think anyone on either side would argue that point. It's also apparent (at least to me) that news organizations like ABC make decisions to go with a story based on whether or not the information can be discredited, not whether or not it can be validated. If ABC is in posession of additional information, they'll release it when they're told- this is undoubtedly calculated- the only questions are who is doing the calculation, what are they thinking, and are they as clever as they think they are? If you think that ABC is not being 'selected' to receive this information based on certain conditions that are being defined by those who are handing over the information, you're being naive. I sincerely hope that a crime is identified here, because a law enforcement investigation is the only way that we'll ever find out what really went on- in fact, I would bet that some have based their words and actions on the hope that this never becomes a criminal matter, so that the 'facts' of the case can continue to be defined through the media.

ABC says they have 52 more message sessions to release. Expect 1-2 per day until November 7th.

And honestly, this benifits ABC that we are talking about them and clicking their site etc. Rating through the roof!

True enough- but this goldmine wasn't just handed to ABC- there were some conditions and instructions involved. It's possible that the conditions and instructions were given with the best of intentions- but I'd like to be fully informed before deciding my position on the matter. One thing is for certain- this situation is playing out according to the manipulation of one side or the other.

If the Clinton Scandal is any reference to how long the media can milk this, expect new revelations every day until the eletion and beyond. With the really interesting ones before the election of course.

Honestly, 52 years of the guys life. Think of the countless men with a story to tell for 6 figure payouts! Just stands to reason any partner he had has a story of what he was like to be with and page jealosy etc.

I don't care how much they liked the guy or still like him. Credit card payments are calling and a chance to pay them all off in one day is enough to make a person tell all most like. Especially after the price of gas all summer those bills are waiting to be paid! ABC has the fat checkbook these days!

As disappointing as it is to view the media and our society in that light, I have to agree with you.

Foley gone? Good riddance. Better off without that sick crap in office. I hope he gets strung up by his own laws.

Hastert resign.... only if it is proven that he knew something beyond those initial emails that were "explained away" as poor taste.

The real question: how much did the Dems know prior to this. The timing of the release of this follows the well known "October Suprise" formula. If that is indeed the case, as some claims are now being mad, then if Hastert is booted then they should too. Anyone on this forum that suggests otherwise is being intellectually dishonest, a total hypocrit, and a purely partisan hack.

Mind you, we are talking not of the initial emails, which while were in poor taste, were no proof of anything else. We are talking about the IM's and further emails that were seriously deranged. Not only does the timing stink like something planned, so does the organization of the release of multiple sources.

Consider this little problem, most people reformat their hard drive fairly frequently. Even my most technologically challenged friends ask me at once a year to walk them through it because of the normal bullcrap that builds up under Windows. Yet these kids had these IM's LOGGED (an overt action in most IM programs) and saved them for 3 years even though they willingly participated? That smells of planning.

"That smells of planning"

Yea, those damn 16yr olds...egging him on, right?

"Hastert resign.... only if it is proven that he knew something beyond those initial emails that were "explained away" as poor taste."

Here's where I've got a major disagreement. One question remaining is "Did Hastert actually read the e-mails the former page had labeled "sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick".

If he didn't, he's negligent and must take responsibility. If he did, Hastert has proven he does not recognize what is obviously 'grooming', and that's a very dangerous ignorance.

Yea, those damn 16yr olds...egging him on, right?

Nope... I don't believe they did. But I do question why it is only coming out now. Convenient timing for the Dems who are known for the "October Suprise" to say the least. Nice attempt at a deflection though. The fact that you can only come up with that says you don't have a credible answer for that.

Here's where I've got a major disagreement. One question remaining is "Did Hastert actually read the e-mails the former page had labeled "sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick, sick".

The question is, did YOU read it? What would YOU have done? Bugged Foley's phone? Ordered his personal hard drive searched and foresically analyzed? Maybe booted him? All on an email that ask what they want for their birthday, and will they send a picture? You know, you have to have a bit more to go on. Like I said, Hastert would have to know about more than that email for me to support resignation.

On the other hand... some reports now are claiming that the Dems knew about this and the IM's as far back as last November. If this is true will you likewise expect their resignation? After all isn't that just as bad?

Hrmm... missed one, here is the one that I didn't cut and paste from the same article:

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

b>Check this out for irony in the Foley case... --

...actual sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page would be perfectly legal in D.C. and in most places in the U.S...., but it seems that it is a criminal act for Foley to discuss or solicit sexual acts with the same page over the Internet.

"... in the overwhelming majority of states, and in Washington DC, the legal age of consent for sex is 16 years old. That means that actual, in-person sex between Foley and a 16-year-old page in D.C. would not be criminal at all (though it likely could have other legal implications).

But under the ... "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006" (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any "minor" under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense (see Adam Walsh Act, Sec. 111(14) ("MINOR.--The term 'minor' means an individual who has not attained the age of 18 years") and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2256 (1) ("'minor' means any person under the age of eighteen years").

Here's the link to this legal discussion:

MOOMANFL

Mind you, Foley is not accused of having any other kind of sex than cyber sex.

From what I just found now (see my link above) cybersex (or discussion/solicitation) is the ONLY sex that is illegal for an adult to have with a 16 year old in D.C. If Foley had had actual sex with a male 16 year old in Washington, D.C. it would have been legal. That was news to me. 16 seems very young for the age of consent.

Really ironic that Foley helped implement and formulate the very law that he violated.

Yup... Irony is sweet. Still wish someone would answer my last 4 post though with something other than a deflection like DANFORTH did.

Larry

I just read it your link now. Ironic. If Foley hadn't helped push thru the Adam Walsh law he wouldn't be in trouble, I guess. Of course he can kiss his political career adios. I heard on the radio that the FBI is already interviewing all the former pages.

"The question is, did YOU read it?"

Yes, I read it, and I recognized it immediately as 'grooming'. Hastert didn't.

"What would YOU have done?"

I would have read the email, and met with Foley and heard his side. Then I would have tried to interview every page with whom he had contact, something Hastert didn't do. He never tried to obtain any view other than Foley's. What kind of "investigation" is that?!? Talking to the pages would've brought out lots of Foley's creepiness (confirming my initial view of 'grooming'), and at that point, I'd insist on his immediate resignation, or minimally be damn sure he wasn't on any committee around children.

"President Clinton, who had his own intern problem, commuted the prison sentence of Illinois Rep. Mel Reynolds"

But not on the sex charge. Reynolds served the entire term on that charge. His sentence was commuted on other issues.

Yeah CalifChris it sure is a clusterfuck isn't it. I hope He gets it good and winds up locked away somewhere for a very long time.

Larry

MOOMANFL

All on an email that ask what they want for their birthday, and will they send a picture? You know, you have to have a bit more to go on. Like I said, Hastert would have to know about more than that email for me to support resignation.

errr, is this the ONLY one of Foley's emails that you read????? Have you missed all the links to his other emails to teenage pages? The one you cited is the mildest one of them all.

"errr, is this the ONLY one of Foley's emails that you read?"

Yea, did you miss Foley's one about the muscular, "hot" page's friend, or did you omit it on purpose?

C'mon, Moon, fess up: What did you know about this "hot" friend email, and when did you know it?

;-)

While searching the net, look what I found.

high profile pedophile
this article would seem routine if you didn't read the first paragraph:

... Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested at his residence in Maryland on charges of use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor. The charges were issued out of Polk County, Fla.

Doyle, of Silver Spring, Md., had a sexually explicit conversation with what he believed was a 14-year-old girl whose profile he saw on the Internet on March 14, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.

The girl was an undercover Polk County Sheriff's Computer Crimes detective, the sheriff's office said.

Doyle sent the girl pornographic movie clips and had sexually explicit conversations via the Internet, the statement said.

you've probably read 20 stories just like that one. sad, sick, but nothing out of the ordinary. let's go back and read that first paragraph.

The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl, authorities said.

not your run-of-the-mill pedophile. maybe he's not as well known as michael jackson or even gary glitter, but as far as i know he's the highest-ranking member of the government ever to be arrested for something like this. crazy.

Doyle, who is the fourth-ranking official in the department's public affairs office, was expected to be placed on administrative leave Wednesday morning.

this guy is a flack so his name is all over the net. in fact, i checked my own blog a post including his name! remember when cat stevens was denied admission to the US?

Homeland Security spokesman Brian Doyle said Islam would be put on the first available flight back to Britain after his Washington D.C.-bound plane was diverted on Tuesday to Maine for security reasons.

"Why is he on the watch lists? Because of his activities that could be potentially linked to terrorism. The intelligence community has come into possession of additional information that further raises our concern (about Islam)," Doyle said.

a google search for brian doyle "homeland security" currently turns up 214,000 hits... and that doesn't include pedophile stories because those are too new to be in the index yet. i'm sure those hits will make some fascinating reading. (john at americablog has already turned up one good example.)

update: holy crap! i hadn't realized that doyle was actually the second DHS official to be accused of such things (and this for a department that's only existed for 4-5 years). from think progress:

Frank Figueroa, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security's program to stop child predators (Operation Predator), today pleaded no contest to charges he exposed himself to a 16-year-old girl. According to the victim, "Figueroa pulled up a leg of his shorts, exposed himself and masturbated for about 10 minutes" in front of her.

that's right: this was the guy who ran the program designed to catch pedophiles.

Yes, I read it, and I recognized it immediately as 'grooming'. Hastert didn't

Hindsight IS 20/20.

I would have read the email, and met with Foley and heard his side. Then I would have

The fact is, the email looked funny (not as in "haha") but Foley's initial explaination easily covered that, if barely. It was the IM's that tipped the scale. Also talking to the pages would have been very time consuming and probably seemed unnecessary considering his explaination. I think your answer is tinted with hindsight and a touch of politics. More hindsight though.

Reynolds served the entire term on that charge. His sentence was commuted on other issues.

Personally I wouldn't have commuted a lawfully given charge on someone that had also commited pedofile acts. But maybe I am just too harsh.

Regardless though, that only answers one out of the 3. And doesn't answer my question: If it turns out the Dems had knowledge of this and sat on it for an "October Suprise", will you call for their resignation just as loudly as well?

I am already on record as stating that if Hastert knew of more and sat on it that I will call for his.

Pointing out your post made the ludicrous suggestion these 16yr olds across the country were somehow conspiring to entrap poor Mark Foley is not a deflection.

It is a deflection to try and say that I suggested they "egged" him on. I simply point out oddities in the situation as being suspicious. You could have pointed out where my logic was faulty instead of misrepresenting my statement. You evidently couldn't so you deflected instead.

Moom,

Yes I would, they would have broken the law.

Fry all who knew. Period, no exceptions.

errr, is this the ONLY one of Foley's emails that you read????? Have you missed all the links to his other emails to teenage pages? The one you cited is the mildest one of them all.

No, I haven't forgotten about them, but can you show that Hastert was made aware of THOSE emails before this hit the news?

Yea, did you miss Foley's one about the muscular, "hot" page's friend, or did you omit it on purpose?

C'mon, Moon, fess up: What did you know about this "hot" friend email, and when did you know it?


I knew about it when it hit the news. Can you show Hastert knew about those before then?

MOOM

HERE IS YOUR ANSWER. You keep asking if the Democrats knew about it, and how guilty they would be too, etc. etc.. Well, check this out:

...The most significant fact I've heard thus far is that, as reported by Roll Call, the GOP Chairman of the House Page Board (as he admits) excluded the Democratic Congressman on the Board from deliberations over what to do about Foley, thus ensuring that only Republicans knew about this problem (and therefore enabled them to conceal it and do nothing about it).

And the conflicting, still-shifting stories about who in the House Leadership knew what and when they knew it suggest some real wrongdoing and, at the very least, produces precisely the whiff of cover-up which ensures that more and more reporters will be digging around and the story will endure.

Moom,

Yes I would, they would have broken the law.

Fry all who knew. Period, no exceptions.

If, God forbid, that is the case and you live up to that, you will have my respect. I say "God forbid" simply because I don't wish to believe that of anyone, not even Dems. Not because I actually like them, just in case you think I am getting soft. Heh heh

Moom,

It is a deflection to try and say that I suggested they "egged" him on. I simply point out oddities in the situation as being suspicious. You could have pointed out where my logic was faulty instead of misrepresenting my statement. You evidently couldn't so you deflected instead.

So often do the rightie deflect the actual issue......"october surprise".....that they appear to dismiss the facts of what is really happening.

I find you are being vague about the deflection but never the less a deflection it is.

This should be political free and the individuals who neglected their duty of reporting the problem should be handled swiftly and strongly.

But from all reports, the FBI and the government agencies are dragging their feet here. Why do you suppose that is. The party in power maybe.

And the conflicting, still-shifting stories about who in the House Leadership knew what and when they knew it suggest some real wrongdoing and, at the very least, produces precisely the whiff of cover-up which ensures that more and more reporters will be digging around and the story will endure.

That may be true, it might not. I am sure we will find out in time. Until we have something concrete I will reserve judgement.

On the other hand, the above doesn't prove the Dems didn't know, it just suggest that if they did then they didn't learn it from the Republicans.

But from all reports, the FBI and the government agencies are dragging their feet here. Why do you suppose that is. The party in power maybe.

Heard today that yesterday the FBI started interviewing all former pages.

"talking to the pages would have been very time consuming and probably seemed unnecessary considering (Foley's) explaination."

Is that how you "investigate"? Get one side and stop there?

"Hindsight IS 20/20."

Not when you recognize it, as Hastert should've. Seriously, Moonman, if it was your 16yr old who was getting emails from a 52yr old Congressman asking for a picture or asking about their "hot" friend, what would YOU infer? As they asked on one of the pundit shows tonight, "would you want to talk to him or would you want to go over there and break his fingers???"

Years ago a theatrical troupe I was involved with developed an award-winning show about child abuse. The warning signs are quite clear. Anyone with a modicum of sense should recognize those emails as 'grooming'. Hastert either saw the emails and is too ignorant to keep his job, or he didn't see the emails and he's too negligent to keep his job.

The ONE Democrat who was on the Page Board was DELIBERATELY excluded from any discussion and knowledge on Foley by the Republicans so they could keep it among themselves even though that one Democrat had been on the Page Board for 20 YEARS!

"October Suprise" is not a deflection on my part since I have explicitly stated several times that I will call for the resignation of anyone that "sat" on this with knowledge of what was going on.

"October Suprise" is just commenting on the expected timing of a scandal breaking at this time. So predictable that it even has a name. The manner and timing of the release of this story seriously smacks of more than just Republican knowledge. Whether this turns out to be the case or not remains to be seen, but it does look fishy.

"I knew about it when it hit the news. Can you show Hastert knew about those before then?"

Yes. Hastert himself has admitted he knew about the emails, months ago. He's also claimed he never read the email from the page who turned over the email with the word "sick" written on it a dozen times.

Or at least that was yesterday...who knows what he's saying today.

Is that how you "investigate"? Get one side and stop there?

You forget, it wasn't just one side. It would have been two... the email AND Foley's explaination. After one email in that regard the only thing the boy could add is what he THOUGHT, but that would have been speculation. I wish that Hastert had the other emails and IM's at the time to make a better decision, but at the moment that looks like it might not have been the case. Time will tell for sure, I trust.

MOON

C'mon, Moon, fess up: What did you know about this "hot" friend email, and when did you know it?


I knew about it when it hit the news. Can you show Hastert knew about those before then?

Posted by moomanfl at 2006-10-04 03:28 AM

How about the one where Foley asks the teenage kid if he "spanks his monkey"? You can't spin the Republicans out of this one. Some powerful ones knew about it, tried to cover it up for political safety, and it was uncovered anyway. How can you blame the Dems for this which is ALL the Republicans fault. The even EXCLUDED ON PURPOSE the ONE Democrat who had been on the Page Board for 20 years in order to make sure that it WOULD BE COVERED UP. Spin away. You are repeating the same spin Limbaugh was shilling this morning.

"After one email in that regard the only thing the boy could add is what he THOUGHT, but that would have been speculation"

Which is why you interview multiple pages.

Not too up on the principles of police work---or journalism---are you?

Yes. Hastert himself has admitted he knew about the emails, months ago.

By the storys that I saw, Hastert knew of the ONE email prior, but didn't know of the others. Would like to know your sources for claiming he knew of more.

Not too up on the principles of police work---or journalism---are you?

So someone sends back an email with "sick sick sick" etc all over it, and the email is asking "what do you want for your birthday" and "will you send a picture" (which by the way I did get a request from an employer once that kept pictures of all former employees for reference purposes) and he should have launched a huge investigation? Hrm... I withdraw my "hindsight" comment. It seems you are more guilty of political wishful thinking. It appears I gave you too much credit.

Actually, while we are all discussing Foley and his lust for 16 year old boys, there is the USS Eisenhower and a fleet of warships heading for Iran. Maybe this was all leaked out at this time ON PURPOSE by Bush/Rove to deflect any media attention as to why now there is a fleet of ships are on their way to the Middle East that were deployed Oct. 1, 2006 instead of next spring as they was originally planned.

The Republicans had known all about Foley for awhile. Maybe Foley was a sacrificial lamb whose story was kept quiet by the Republicans until now because the Republicans knew that story would keep the media's attention off of Bush's WAR PLANS FOR IRAN.

Don't underestimate the Neocons.

Moonman,

But Hastert has claimed he didn't read the "sick, sick, sick" email.

Is that a good enough investigation for you?

Talk about deflection now, look at the suggestion right here. It appears Moom has been reading the latest breaking news.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Hastert had told him last spring that a Louisiana page's complaint about Foley "had been taken care of."

"It's in his corner. It's his responsibility," Boehner, R-Ohio, said of Hastert's handling of the issue, which was originally confined to e-mails described as overly friendly, but not explicit.

A few hours later, Boehner challenged a newspaper's call for Hastert's resignation, writing that "no one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages" that surfaced last week.

Boehner also suggested that campaign opponents might have made sure the e-mails surfaced close to midterm elections. "If this evidence was withheld for political purposes, one can only speculate as to how many additional children may have been endangered before this information was finally revealed," he wrote.

"If this evidence was withheld for political purposes, one can only speculate as to how many additional children may have been endangered before this information was finally revealed," he wrote."

How many had been endangered? Whatever the answer is, it's minimally no less than the Republicans endangered.

Both Hastings and Berman declined to comment when asked if they would look specifically into leadership and when they knew information about Foley.

At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page. They include:

Majority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (N.Y.) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) and John Shimkus (R-Ill.), as well as a senior aide to Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl.

G'Nite folks. Thanks for the evening.

Talk about deflection now, look at the suggestion right here. It appears Moom has been reading the latest breaking news...

...Boehner, R-Ohio, said of Hastert's handling of the issue, which was originally confined to e-mails described as overly friendly, but not explicit....

...Boehner challenged a newspaper's call for Hastert's resignation, writing that "no one in the leadership, including Speaker Hastert, had any knowledge of the warped and sexually explicit instant messages" that surfaced last week.

First of all, it is hardly "breaking news" as it was reported earlier today for anyone that actually monitors the news closely. As you yourself point out that story is from 13 hours ago. I actually watch the news.

Secondly, DANFORTHS links says Hastert was aware of emails... but doesn't say which ones or what the actual content was of them. Evidently from the reports given it WASN'T the explicit ones.

As for a deflection, it doesn't take a lot of thinking to see the possible implications of the timing here. That is hardly a deflection but a legitimate questioning of how much the opposition actually knew and when.

Whatever the answer is, it's minimally no less than the Republicans endangered.

Only if you can show that the Republicans knew about more than the initial emails mentioned... the "overly friendly" ones that is.

On the other hand, if the Democrats sat on this release till now, then they HAVE harmed without a doubt because it is fairly obvious then that they knew of the whole enchilada and reserved the story for political gain.

Hastert's staff first knew of Foley emails in 2005
By Patrick O'Connor

House Speaker Dennis Hastert's (R-Ill.) staff was first informed of Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) unusual email exchange with a 16-year old page in the fall of 2005, according to a timeline released by the Speaker's office Saturday afternoon.

Hastert's chief of staff Scott Palmer and outside counsel Randy Evans initiated an internal investigation Friday shortly after Foley announced his resignation. The timeline is based on their preliminary report, according to the release.

The release of the timeline comes on the heels of a statement by National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.) on Saturday that the campaign chief first told the Speaker about the email exchange earlier this year, shortly after the race to succeed former Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

The Speaker's office does not dispute that conversation in its own release.

"While the Speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation, he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," states the release.

At least four Republican House Members, one senior GOP aide and a former top officer of the House were aware of the allegations about Foley that prompted the initial reporting regarding his e-mail contacts with a 16-year-old House page.

So they knew about the initial emails... that is hardly news. Did they know more? Now THAT is the question. One I am sure that I am sure you will answer, but can't back up with proof.

On the other hand, if the Democrats sat on this release till now, then they HAVE harmed without a doubt because it is fairly obvious then that they knew of the whole enchilada and reserved the story for political gain.

Now I see this for what it is, political bull shit to deflect from the real issue and to insight doubt.

You would not think getting soft was just a outright lie. You're purposely trying to cast doubt by Character assassination of the democrats to cast speculation that the democrats need investigated too.

I would never have believed that any party could have lower ethical scrupples and outright criminal morals as the Clinton administration, but it appears that this Reporighties are far far worse.

Hastert knew about this in the fall of 2005. Hastert knew for almost a year.

Again, you are basically repeating normal behavior as if it were a scandal. A year ago Hastert gets a report that someone is complaining about suspicious emails. They are explained as being "overly friendly" and I am sure that Foley was warned simply because in these highly partisan times any hint at perceived impropriety could be trouble. But now you call for Hastert's resignation for not somehow divining that Foley was doing much more.

You seem to think that these emails would have been enough to launch a major investigation, when in truth it wouldn't have even been enough to get a court's search warrant. But still according to the way you are portraying it, you seem to suggest that Hastert should be held responsible RETROACTIVELY for IM's and explicit emails that he DIDN'T know about.

Ridiculous.

On the other hand you seem to ignore or downplay the really suspicious timing of this and the possible role your own party may have played in this. Can't wait for the bloggers to get ahold of this one and really start to dig on where the story came from. This is worthy of Dan Rather.

Let me reiterate though, just in case you missed it... I am GLAD Foley is gone. I hope he goes to prison for a long, looooong time. If it can be proven that any of the Republican's actually KNEW what he was doing and sat on it... or had a CREDIBLE reason for believing that he was and didn't investigate, then they should resign. Further more, if it is found that a Democrat(s) knew about this and waited to release for an "October Suprise" I want them run out of DC on a rail (so to speak).

Now I see this for what it is, political bull shit to deflect from the real issue and to insight doubt.

Not at all, and interesting that a legitimate question would make you say that. a deflection is meant to divert attention from the subject... the subject being "who knew before hand and did nothing?". I think my question falls squarely in that catagory. I think that trying to keep the focus STRICTLY on Republicans is the REAL deflection.

Now, here is morals of even a democrat challenger.

Hastert and Boehner are scheduled to attend fund-raising events on behalf of embattled Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Don Sherwood in coming weeks. Sherwood's Democratic challenger, Chris Carney, a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Reserve who served as a senior advisor on intelligence and counterterrorism issues at the Pentagon, has asked the Republican congressman to cancel the events. "Holding happy hour fundraisers with people who cover-up the cyber-molestation of children should be below even the questionable morals of Don Sherwood

The challenger asks that they not appear for the republican congressman. How is that for a twist of fate.

Gee, that is supposed to be a suprise? The challenger doesn't want party leadership to showup in support and a fundraiser for his opponent? That was a political statement and a half... and if it wasn't politics he would get sued for slander and defamation considering he has named them as covering up without proof.

I think that trying to keep the focus STRICTLY on Republicans is the REAL deflection.

Really! I have not seen anything even in near miss that would suggest even one democrat knew, but you push this October surprise which is out right speculative reaching to congeal a false idea to actual known fact.

Political right hack and the fact that you are pushing such an idea suggest you yourself could careless about the actual incident but are trying to perform damage control for your party.

What a sad state of affairs we live in, nothing is sadder than a party being more concerned for their reputation than actually doing the ethically/morally correct thing.

if it wasn't politics he would get sued for slander and defamation considering he has named them as covering up without proof.

Sorry, but politics are not subject to the slander and defamation clause the rest of the nation are subject to, but do try and make that spin.

It is not anything but the truth and you know it.

So they knew about the initial emails... that is hardly news. Did they know more? Now THAT is the question. One I am sure that I am sure you will answer, but can't back up with proof.

Posted by moomanfl at 2006-10-04 04:09 AM

Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even if Hastert initially knew only about the one "mildest" e-mail between Foley and the 16 year old page, as leader of the House IT WAS HASTERT'S DUTY to follow up and ask if there were any more emails and, if so, to see ANY AND ALL e-mails up to that point in time.

Congress gives you the title of "HOUSE LEADER" for a reason. Hastert is not dumb. Foley was long known in D.C. political circuits as a gay Congressman who liked very young guys. The minute Hastert heard of even ONE single improper e-mail concerning Foley he should have immediately demanded an in-house investigation and demanded that he see any and all emails between Foley to young pages.

They ALL knew there was improper stuff regarding Foley's actions the Republicans wanted kept quiet otherwise they would not have deliberately excluded the ONE Democrat on the Page Board from knowing anything about it so they could cover it up.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

'nite all.

Really! I have not seen anything even in near miss that would suggest even one democrat knew, but you push this October surprise which is out right speculative reaching to congeal a false idea to actual known fact.

Well considering that the term "October Suprise" is linked to the Democrats, and is a well documented and certainly not new phenomena... and considering that there has been considerable speculation on what form it would take this year, it is no suprise that Republicans would be a bit suspicious about the timing of this. To suggest otherwise is dishonest of you.

Personally, I don't think much damage is going to be done, although I think the Democrats will try to widen the wound as much as possible. Just so you know, I don't consider losing Foley to be damage... I consider it a blessing. About the only thing I can say positive about Foley is that when push came to shove he resigned quickly and voluntarily.

I think the real political hack is the one that refuses to see something truely suspicious like this timing and gets indignant when someone suggests that it should be looked at after suggestion that Hastert should have devined deep meaning from "what do you want for your birthday" and "send me a picture".

They are explained as being "overly friendly"

Now me being a prudent man, an adult even, would take this information between a 55 year old congressman and a 16 year old page to mean what????????

Overly friendly, as in "hey stud" or similar such things.

Not on your life, using political words to lessen the impact will not work, it is clear he knew, so stop pandering the political rhetoric.

Well considering that the term "October Suprise" is linked to the Democrats

Really, well I must be slow because I linked it to either party.

An October surprise is American political jargon describing a stunning news event with the potential to influence the outcome of an election, particularly one for the presidency. It is so called because Election Day in the U.S. is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, and events shortly before the election have greater potential to swing votes. Most of the time, the term is used to label actions of a sitting president, especially with regard to military or foreign policy matters, but it can also apply to news stories unfavorable to the incumbent administration. "Historically, news outlets avoid investigative pieces critical of candidates within days of an election to avoid appearing partisan." [1] Particularly since the 1980 election, the term has been pre-emptively used to discredit late-campaign news by one side or the other.

I think the real political hack is the one that refuses to see something truely suspicious like this timing and gets indignant when someone suggests that it should be looked at after suggestion that Hastert should have devined deep meaning from "what do you want for your birthday" and "send me a picture".

Yeah, this explains how you can also not see the lies of WMD, Osama who, and all the other things affiliated with this cabal.

Congressmen do this for all 16 year old pages.

Where there's smoke, there's fire.

I would say that the "October Suprise" issue is quite a bit of smoke considering that one was anticipated and this arrive right one time, and considering the Dems have pulled one every election.

But to answer your Hastert stuff:

Even if Hastert initially knew only about the one "mildest" e-mail between Foley and the 16 year old page, as leader of the House IT WAS HASTERT'S DUTY to follow up and ask if there were any more emails and, if so, to see ANY AND ALL e-mails up to that point in time.

I think you are reaching. Again, this is hindsight politics you are playing and not reality. The very fact that you haven't called for the resignation of Democratic Reps that didn't call for the resignation of Barney Franks back in `83 speaks to the double standard of politics... since he actually engaged in full blown intercourse with a 16 year old page at the time. Where was your indignation prior to 1996 when he finally left office (not for that)? Did you call for his resignation? The fact is Hastert knew about something mild that was explained away. Regrettable, but understandable for anyone that doesn't have an axe to grind. If anyone can prove he knew more I will join you in calling for his resignation.

I would say that the "October Suprise" issue is quite a bit of smoke considering that one was anticipated and this arrive right one time, and considering the Dems have pulled one every election.

Again, really! I think you need to look back and think about history and understand it comes from both sides.

Ford and Reagan come to mind but they aren't repubrighties are they.

Congressmen do this for all 16 year old pages.

For your amusement I will repost my earlier (and ignored by all of you) post and ask again where your indignation was then:

In 1983, then-Democratic Rep. Gerry Studds of Massachusetts was caught in a similar situation. In his case, Studds had sex with a male teenage page -- something Foley hasn't been charged with.

Did Studds express contrition? Resign? Quite the contrary. He rejected Congress' censure of him and continued to represent his district until his retirement in 1996.

Who called for resignation? Anyone? Anyone? Hands please.

Yeah, this explains how you can also not see the lies of WMD, Osama who, and all the other things affiliated with this cabal.

Didn't say it wasn't odd, but odd people don't routinely get investigated. Being odd is not a crime. But on one hand he should have been investigated for a couple of odd emails that really didn't show illegal or rule breaking behavior, but when it is suggested that suspicious timing should be looked at given past history I am blasted. Hypocritical to say the least.

In 1983???? Well if it happened in 2006 he would have been arrested.

Are you for real?

Reagan come to mind but they aren't repubrighties are they.

LOL... like Reagan needed an "October Suprise" to beat Carter. LOL That man had cooked his OWN goose well before the election. As for Ford, I was too young to remember that one. But Considering that I am in my late 30's now and the only ones you named came when I was around 10 or younger... that says something.

In 1983???? Well if it happened in 2006 he would have been arrested.

Are you for real?

I believe it was still against the law then anyway... and regardless, the man didn't leave office till 1996. That is 13 years still in office afterwards. Indignation anyone? Where was it then?

Actually, while we are all discussing Foley and his lust for 16 year old boys, there is the USS Eisenhower and a fleet of warships heading for Iran.

Chris,

Quick, look! There are illegal aliens running across your lawn!

That ought to keep him busy for a while!:)

OMG!!!! Laughing my ass off here. Too funny!

Illegal immigration is one of the subjects I actually agree with Chris on... but in the words of the cable guy named Larry:

"That's funny right there. I don't care WHO you are.... that's funny!"

Moomanfl--When Studds was censured in 1983, it was for something that happened in 1973. TEN YEARS EARLIER.

In addition, both Studds and Crane ran for reelection. Crane was defeated--he didn't leave on his own. Studds was reelected.

Actually, the Studds thing happened in 1973 and no, it wasn't illegal then.

"Personally, I don't think much damage is going to be done"

That's more like wishful thinking than critical thinking.

Damage has already been done. It's now a matter of how much more damage to the republican party, depending on how many others knew and did nothing.

"So they knew about the initial emails... that is hardly news"

I love how when negative publicity is about republicans, it's made light of. "that's hardly news" or "that's nothing new", etc.

It's not working.

I love how when negative publicity is about republicans, it's made light of. "that's hardly news" or "that's nothing new", etc.

Or they can do what Fox "News" does and run Foley's picture with D-FL instead of R-FL.

Yav, good catch...so you thought. But, not really. Foley was a Dem. He has now switched back again. Remember, most all of these folks are political animals (now Foley has proven he is an animal, period). However, his political animal is following the success story of Gary Studs within the Democratic "party". The Republicans were appalled when this all came to light with the exposure of the IMs, and a resignation ensued. However, Foley is coming home, home to the Dems. He saw that they pushed for and got their son "studs" re-elected. So he is home again.

Ride on--this is nothing like Studds. Read the post at 7:32.

You are right BB. We know hero "studs" who was run for and won re-election had sex with a page. I think more is coming about Foley, but we don't know it yet. As of right now though...you are correct, nothing like Studds.

If Gore had invented the Internet just a little bit sooner maybe Studds could have limited his activity to cybersex. Doubtful though, because these people are ALL very sick and destructive.

I said Studds had sex with a page. So true. You justify that it is ok anyway you want to.

Ride on--You justify that Bushs cocaine use is ok anyway you want to. You justify that Bushs AWOL is ok anyway you want to. You justify Bushs DUI is ok anyway you want to. You justify Bushs midnight visits from Jeff Gannon anyway you want to.

The Moonies are right: Fat Bastert SHOULD resign!

I guess I hit a nerve BB. You have justified Studds actions in your mind already, so you want others to join you in justifying other acts that you also deem are unjustifiable. You are an interesting fellow there Bobby.

I guess I hit a nerve Ride On. You have justified Bushs actions in your mind already, so you want others to join you in justifying other acts that you also deem are unjustifiable. You aren't a very interesting person there RID.

LOL, Bush never came up, until you brought him up. You're obsession...BB. I didn't even comment on it. Are you in a different thread? Anger and paranoia making you blind?

moomanfl sez:

"Just so you know, I don't consider losing Foley to be damage... I consider it a blessing."

Well, counting you, that makes one.

"About the only thing I can say positive about Foley is that when push came to shove he resigned quickly and voluntarily."

Note: in the prior math equation, "ABC" = "push", and "showing the damning emails" = "shove". It should properly read "...that when ABC came to show the damning emails, he resigned quickly and voluntarily." Oh, and "voluntarily" should read "moments before his resignation would've been demanded."

"I think the real political hack is the one that refuses to see something truely suspicious..."

Like, say, someone wanting to ignore the known facts, and instead concentrate on made-up conjectures.

"suggestion that Hastert should have devined deep meaning from "what do you want for your birthday" and "send me a picture".

ABSOLUTELY. That, combined with 'how's your hot muscular friend' is 'grooming', and if Hastert didn't realize that, or did and didn't do anything about it, he must go. Either way, he's either responsible or irresponsible.

LOL, Studds never came up until you brought him up. You're obsession with all things Bush is showing.

BOB OLAFFUB, LOL.

Ride on,

Since you have the info on when Foley became a Republican, why don't you post it over on the Fox News "Mark Foley is a Democrat" thread?

Ride On---What's the matter? Tired of playing the deflection game? How about seeing how many soldiers blood who died for nothing is on your hands today. That should make you feel safe.

What do the Republicans even need a Majority Leader for anyway? Heck, they only meet ONE day out of the week when they ARE supposedly in session, and they don't get anything done.

What do the Republicans even need a Speaker of the House for anyway? Heck, they only meet ONE day out of the week when they ARE supposedly in session, and they don't get anything done.

Ride on - didn't see you over at the other thread yet. Here, let me help:

Political Experience:
Deputy Majority Whip, Representative, United States House of Representatives, 1995-2006
Senator, Florida State Senate, 1993-1994
Representative, Florida State House of Representatives, 1991-1992
Republican Nominee for Florida House, 1986
Vice Mayor, City of Lake Worth, 1983-1984
Commissioner, City of Lake Worth, 1982-1984.