The Foley Matter: building a case against Roy Blunt
Why not? They're on a perverse roll.
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2006 — Comments (47) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Roy Blunt of Missouri was once acting House Majority Leader. Four months later, he lost the leadership election to John Boehner of Ohio, but Roy Blunt now says that things would be different, with regard to the Foley matter, if he were in charge of things. He told reporters in Springfield:
"I think I could have given some good advice [to Speaker Hastert?] here, which is you have to be curious, you have to ask all the questions you can think of," Blunt said. "You absolutely can't decide not to look into activities because one individual's parents don't want you to."
Chuck Todd of National Journal speculates that the Foley matter might have been "simply a concern that slipped through the cracks because the House GOP leadership team was in chaos at the time due to the resignation of DeLay as majority leader and the fight for the post between Missouri Rep. Roy Blunt and Boehner?
Read More...
According to the Kansas City Star:
Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri wasn’t part of any past discussions of Foley’s e-mails, said spokeswoman Burso Snyder.
“The first time Cong. Blunt heard anything about the Foley matter was Thursday of last week when ABC broke the story,” Snyder said in an e-mail.
She said no “leadership meetings” were held on the issue, but rather some “one-on-one conversations among members.”
So what did Roy Blunt know, and when did he know it?
To the Democrats and to the mainstream media, this was never really about Mark Foley and the disgusting things he wrote to teenagers placed in his trust. (The theory is that Congress critters are in loco parentis to the pages in and out of the program.) This has become about the 2006 Midterm Elections. The WashPost paints it that way. So does the New York Times. Even the usually right-of-center MTV sees this as being about the midterms. (Pardon the sarcasm in describing the cable channel that once played music videos.)
The list could continue, as it is: "Get the Republican leadership, Take the elections!"
So why not pile on Congressman Blunt, too? I mean, they're going after Hastert and Boehner. And NRCC chair Tom Reynolds.
So why not Roy Blunt? Why not Joe Negron after that? And Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton… And why not James G. Watt, as the momentum builds?
Culture of corruption! Republicans on the ropes!
They might be weak on the terrorists, but the Democrats are willing to stand up to the Republicans. The political game becomes perversion when perversion becomes a political game.
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Who Is Brian Smoot? — Comments (15) »
The Foley Matter: building a case against Roy Blunt 47 Comments (0 topical, 47 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
any democrat has been convicted of having sex with a congressional page. No wait, that's happened. The interesting angle on this was that I heard an interview with a retired FBI agent on the radio this morning. He indicated that even the disgusting IM's may not have broken the law. SO while Foley is a dirtbag, he may not be a criminal.
...he brings up, however rashly, a valid point: Don't think for a moment that the Dem's aren't going to pounce on this like a feline on catnip what with the memory of the prosecution of the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal still relatively fresh in their minds, whatever the differences of each case may be. Especially when the House leadership's response smells of multiple cases of CYA rather a united one built with a keen eye on party strategy.
This could have been handled better. To the extend that it comes off as bungled, they will move in for the kill with visions of dishes best served cold dancing in their heads.
(Oh, and yes, I'm new -- hello, all.)
Good luck.
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
I've been pondering a bit one question that no one seems to be talking about. Where did the IM's come from, who had them, when were the seen by Speaker Hastert.
The emails from Congressman Foley were creepy, yucky and strange, but the IM's were sick. It would seem to me that access to along with knowledge of the details IM's which told the full sick tale, and no way no how could they have been passed of as "Just overly friendly".
The KnownFact(tm) folks assert that the Republican leadership, should have known, or were covering up for Foley, but this is based on the email traffic, when it's the IM's which took things over the line. If the Media is going to assert the KnownFact(tm) of poor Republican leadership, it would be nice to know where the key evidence came into view.
So anyone know the source of the IM's and how they came into Speaker Hastert's possession, and while you're at it, please explain how you save copies of IM's anyway. I'm not into that part of computer use and could use some background.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
Its really not that difficult, usually in the IM program the user has the option of saving the conversation. Also some IM programs can be set to log ALL conversations. Saving IM isnt really all that out of the ordinary. I use a program called DeadAIM that is set to log everything, and most people I know have theirs set the same way.
they have to be kept by the sender or receiver, maybe the service provider has some short-term back up. Most corporate or government security systems won't catch IMs, so the smart ones ban their use on their networks. So, that gives you a pretty good universe in which to look for the source. I keep saying I'd like to know something about the pages and their families; you don't get a page gig at Job Service, so the parents are likely to be well connected, but to whom is an interesting question.
In Vino Veritas
At this juncture there are a lot of KnownFacts floating around, sure would be nice to know when Speaker Hastert got copies of the IM's.
As to the pages, being pretty young, and pretty technology savy, no problem for them to figure it out.
I'm sure Hastert knew for some time Foley might have been weird, but how weird or rather sick is shown in the IM's.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
From an interview by Amy Goodman of Maddy Sauer:
AMY GOODMAN: Maddy Sauer joins us in the studio now, producer with the investigative unit, ABC News, has produced the stories on the Foley scandal with correspondent Brian Ross. Jonathan Kaplan joins us in Washington, D.C., a staff writer with The Hill newspaper, has also been following the Foley story. Maddy Sauer, let's begin with you. First of all, welcome to Democracy Now!
MADDY SAUER: Thank you.
AMY GOODMAN: Tell us exactly how this went down. Tell us how you developed this story.
MADDY SAUER: Well, it started on Thursday, when we ran a story on our website after we had obtained some emails that were written to a 16-year-old former congressional page from Congressman Foley that the page had forwarded on to a congressional staffer, saying that they made him uncomfortable. And these were certainly not the sexually explicit emails we later obtained, but they were strange things that you wouldn’t think that a congressman would be writing to a junior in high school: “What do you want for your birthday? What kind of stuff do you like to do? I like to work out. I like to keep in shape.” And it was enough that the young boy had gotten a little freaked out by it and forwarded it along to a staffer. And those were the emails we had initially obtained, and we did a story on that on Thursday.
AMY GOODMAN: And how did you get this information?
MADDY SAUER: They were passed to a colleague of mine from a source, not someone from a Democratic campaign, a source on the Hill. And when we talked to Foley's office about those emails, they seemed to know all about them. “It’s no big deal. He is overly friendly. He’s overly engaging. If he’s guilty of anything, that’s all he’s guilty of. He’s very close with the pages. He has worked with the page program for some time.”
So we published that story, and then almost immediately we began receiving emails from former pages, some going back as far as five years, who said this is the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more here. And Thursday night, I started reaching out to them by phone and email and talking to them Thursday night and Friday morning. And Friday morning, I received transcripts from two different former pages that were instant messages between former pages and the congressman, and they were very sexually explicit, and they were very similar. Both of them contained similar language, similar requests that the congressman had asked the young boys to do.
AMY GOODMAN: This was the one saying thing the teenagers should strip, and he wanted to grab his penis.
MADDY SAUER: Yes. And he had asked both of them to measure their penis. And it was enough that I went to Brian Ross with these, saying, you know, “What we do now?” And, of course, because they’re instant messaging transcripts, it was very hard to judge whether they were authentic or not, because anyone could hypothetically type one of these up.
So, there really was no other option but to go to the congressman's office with this and let them know what we found. So I called the press person for Congressman Foley. I had let him know that I had obtained two transcripts from two different former pages, regarding internet messages with former pages. And they asked me for a copy of them, and I had to refuse, because that would have let them know who the pages involved in these communications were, and I wasn’t ready to do that. So, he asked me to read him the transcripts, which I did. And he –
AMY GOODMAN: This is the press person?
MADDY SAUER: This is the press person. And it was one of the strangest press conversations I’ve ever had with a press person for a congressman, because I’ve never ended that conversation saying, “So the question is: does the congressman engage in sexually explicit internet messages with teenagers that worked as congressional pages?” And when he had to tell me he’d call me back on that one, I knew we had a problem here. So, it was, I’d say, an hour maybe that we got a call back from the congressman's office saying he was going to resign.
AMY GOODMAN: The congressman himself or his office?
MADDY SAUER: No, no. His office. We never spoke directly with the congressman.
AMY GOODMAN: And what has happened since?
MADDY SAUER: And so, since then we’ve begun posting these messages, and we’ve received even more communication from former pages. I have talked to, now, I would say, almost ten former pages from different years, a few of whom have had direct email interactions with the congressman that were like this, a couple of whom are just friends of people that had these experiences. And the stories are remarkably similar. It always starts as a friendly “Hi, how are you doing?”
And, of course, these pages have left the Hill at this point. They’re not still working on the Hill, so they want to keep in touch with the congressman contact, because they’re all aspiring politicians or at least want to work in that world. And they’re trying to chat politics with him, and meanwhile he’s changing the subject to, you know, “Go measure yourself and what are you wearing?” And, you know, one of the questions that keeps coming up is, why didn't anyone report this? But this is after they’ve left the Hill. There’s no dorm proctor to go to. There’s no page person to go to, a supervisor. So, short of calling the police, there wasn’t really a lot of options for these young men. And, of course, you know, no one wants to start their political career by being in the center of a sex scandal.
That's great!
Just the chain of events, the facts of the explosion as it were.
The money quote:
"MADDY SAUER: Well, it started on Thursday..., . And it was enough that the young boy had gotten a little freaked out by it and forwarded it along to a staffer."
So looks like Hastert did not know the extent of Foley's proclivity until all heck broke loose after Thursday. It also looks like ABC was surprised when they floated a small story about weird emails, with prompting by a Democratic staffer, and then hooked "Jaws". News agencies do this all the time I'd guess, like bird hunting, the small story is the bird dog flushing a few quail.
So who was the Democratic staffer that prompted the ABC reporter, and what had he seen before "Jaws" took the bait Thursday/Friday. I'd like to know if the Democratic staffer knew the extent of Foley's behavior before Thursday last week, and what he/she did about that. If Hastert can be guilty, so can anyone of any party that covered things up, or suppressed information for a political gain.
Follow the trail.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
former Pages, rather than the current ones, or at least it looks like the IMs came from former Pages, not current ones-not 100% clear on whether they were Pages at the time of the IMs or after.
It does seem to indicate that nobody in leadership knew they existed, and Foley himself probably didn't.
I also wonder, since they all seem to be former Pages, if a quiet investigation by the Page board would have netted much information-depending on who they talked to, and how willing to be open the Pages were.
"It does seem to indicate that nobody in leadership knew they existed"
Emails or IM's?
It's pretty clear that Speaker Hastert knew for some period of time about the emails, and most likely thought "Yuck", strange dude, but how much of a case do I make of this.
The KnownFact(tm) appears to come from those with the brilliance and power of 20/20 hind sight that there was something seriously wrong with Congressman Foley's behavior. I suppose Hastert is going through some real self "Woulda, coulda, shoulda" thinking right now for sure.
I guess the issue with Hastert comes down to how you view him. He's either asleep at the switch, or way too sensitive to Foley's gayness and fearful of launching a witch hunt in the caucus, or more sinister thoughts. As it's the Democrats at work here feeding the fire, you can bet they are framing things to make the later impression. Hastert is not helping himself either by the way he's dealing with the press on this issue.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
question a couple of posts up was about-that I wanted to know who had the IMs, and how they got to the media. I also wanted to know if the GOP had access to them, and from the ABC reporters interview it looks like that wasn't the case.
I think facts, not KnownFacts(tm) are our friend. They may be unpleasant facts at times, and they result in harm to the Republican party if something bad has been going on, but truth is a virtue that both Social Conservatives and Libertarians respect I think.
I propose a uniting value that all Republicans can agree on:
TRUTH from our leaders.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
are extremely superficial if they allow this little flap to push them to vote for the Democrats, especially if national security is as important as the polls say.
There is one person responsible for, Foley's actions, and that person is Foley. Can you imagine the uproar from the liberal media and Dems had Republicans pounced on Foley because they suspected he might be gay? He had not publicly proclaimed his sexual orientation until yesterday. The emails would not have caused a ripple had Foley been a confirmed "straight". I worked with a guy and associated with him socially for two years before I even had a hint he was gay. It appears Foley hid his "gayness" as well as my friend.
Our political "correctness" is going to be the death of this country.
The only people who care whether or not Foley was gay are the republicans. No one is faulting him for being gay. Being gay is not the same as being a sexual predator of young teenagers.
Perhaps Foley hid his gayness, because of the repression he felt from his own political party?
...obsessively planned to wait a year to out the man. Because they didn't care (HT: Gateway Pundit).
But I speak to a ghost.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
3 years ago. BlogActive was trying to confirm Foley's status, your links to the hyperventilating apologists notwithstanding.
[None of which contradicts that they did, indeed, care. This was a specific rebuttal to a specific twerp's specific allegation: I recommend not getting involved, and I certainly recommend you show a touch elementary politeness during your return visits here. All properly beamed and propped? Good. Glad to hear it.- Moe Lane]
You hijack my comment with an "annotation" that calls another commenter a "twerp" and I'm being impolite? Why so huffy about my involvement?
"Care" that he is gay or that he is gay and actively promotes legislation that undercuts what they perceive to be gay "rights?" (their claim, not mine)
Half of the links that are cited in the Gateway Pundit link that you provided show that their (Gay activists') stated goal is to hilite Foley's do-as-I-say attitude. The rest of the links are full of disinformation about John Aravosis and Ross' investigation.
Clear things up a bit? Good.
...was unclear?
Feel free to use the Contact link if you'd like to complain; otherwise, kindly don't interfere with the people moderating this site. It's a bad week for it.
Thanks in advance for your compliance.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
YOU ain't gay, is you, boy? Don't make me get my bloodhounds outta the backa my pickup.
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
The emails would not have caused a ripple had Foley been a confirmed "straight".
Well yeah, because confirmed heterosexual males don't have email flirting sessions with other males.
Joe Scarborough said on the air that he knew Foley was gay "from the moment he met him," or something along those lines. Whenever I'd call one of my gay friends during his summer in DC it was a running joke about seeing Foley at the bars in DuPont. Everyone knew he was gay -- but everyone didn't know that he was getting friendly with pages. The question that we still don't have a great answer to is who know about that, and when.
Joe has begun to wear thin on me. He's taken a much more liberal stance on his show because he wants to keep some of the kooks that Olbermann has before him. As for the Foley story, it's time for Republicans to shut up and circle the wagons, not form a circular firing squad. Go on the offense and stay there. Point the fingers after we've fought to retain the House and Senate.
tossed the pervert out of civilization.
Let's counter them. Let's discuss why this scandal broke when it did.
And if they want to talk about stopping such behavior in the future, and the Dems are not touching that, we'll discuss the problem in the larger context. I'm tired of watching them attack Republicans one by one.
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
A) House leadership has fumbled this outright, and so brought the spotlight straight down on them. Any attempts to question the timing and sourcing of the original story will look even to the most nonjudgemental like a desperate bid to distract, and will be met with much skepticism.
B) Don't expect the media to pick up and play any theories that members of their own sat on this.
Right now I'd say the best game plan is for House leadership to look credulous and cohesive in their response and project a sense of responsibility for this happening on their watch. Not sure at this point that this can be accomplished w/o a wholesale housecleaning, given all the "he-said"-"no-HE-said" stories bubbling up.
Yeah, the Democrats sure are saying that the House leadership as fumbled this, and in their confusion about the technology, some Republicans are believing it.
Ignorance is killing us here.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
1. The extent of knowledge about the emails and IMs, and
2. The extent of knowledge about Foley's generally-creepy behavior, about which more is coming out every few hours.
What the Dems are making noise about is that House leadership has been covering this up. That the response has been as disjointed as it is, is the reason this complaint is getting the coverage that it is.
No, I don't think it takes a look through partisan-colored glasses to assess that House leadership has been ineffective at making sure the Foley story sinks quickly from the public mind with a bare minimum of collateral damage, because that is clearly not what is happening.
Read it here in the NY Sun. He presents a comprehensive case against Hastert for failing as a Republican leader.
http://www.nysun.com/article/40910
Here's the first paragraph:
"Not only has Speaker Denny Hastert thoroughly mishandled the Mark Foley incident, he has been an ineffective leader, one who has failed to communicate broad policy and philosophical goals for the House GOP. Thanks to Mr. Hastert, there has been no guiding Republican message emanating from the House — a huge missed opportunity to say the least."
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
leader, and personlly wouldn't mind seeing him gone.
I am just not convinced this issue requires he actually resign the post at this point. If you argue big picture/straw that broke the camels back, I can maybe go for that one.
I agree.
"During my lifetime, most of the problems the world has faced have come from mainland Europe, and the solutions from outside it." - Thatcher
I hear the complaint that the Democrats, and by extention, the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy known as the media don't care at all about the kids that were mistreated & see this only as a political opportunity.
No doubt that there is some truth to the idea that a lot of them... us... are glad to see a light at the end of the one-party-rule tunnel. No doubt that there are a few jaded souls, some may be politicos, some may be journalists, that don't care about the kids.
But, I think that if the author & commenters didn't also care about the political opportunity - just as much as their Democratic counterparts, there would be a lot less complaining about the people making it a political issue and a lot more questioning what went wrong, and why Hastert & co. didn't investigate and deal with the problem, and what we can do to fix a political system where the in-power party will cut important corners just to increase their chances, however minimally, of hanging on to that power.
What's wrong with a system where the answer to a situation like this is "circle the wagons" & "don't let them get a political advantage out of this" instead of "what went wrong?" and "why did Hastert think *this* is what we wanted?"
That this happened to kids is a tragedy. Unfortunately, it's a tragedy that would get none of our attention if it happened in the trailer park up the street. It happens every day and it's never "big" news by itself - even if it is the worst part of the story.
But there is a political issue, too. The leadership's response to the problem that they knew about (no matter how thoroughly they may or may not have known about it) *was* an aspect of the culture of corruption. Electoral calculus did take precedence over doing the right thing. It isn't just Democrats that *should* be pointing that out. Every right-thinking individual should be pointing that out. Congresscritters don't have to be acting in loco parentis to police their own creeps, especially when there are kids around. Congresscritters are more powerful than you and me. They have more say in what happens in our lives - up to and including deciding when there will be killing and when there won't - than you and me. They must be held to a very high standard of integrity.
The culture of corruption extends beyond any one party. But ignoring it because you think the other side is worse is not really a viable option for an ethical & patriotic American.
it's still nasty but it looks like Brian Ross lied, is anyone shocked, it's on drudge right now
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Also referred from Drudge -
"A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser."
21-3 =18. 18 is not a kid. Foley is still a dirtbag and should be horsewhipped, but this is not child abuse. Now back to our regularly scheduled Democratic tirade.
Depends a bit on when the IMs took place and at what point he turned 18.
My daughter right now is 12, she will be 13 next week.
If some guy was emailing her three years ago-and you were talking about 2003 to sometime in 2006 for part of the year she would have been 9 and for another part 10.
So, unless you know the exact dates involved, you can't assume for sure that he was over 18 at the time of the IMs. Investigation may reveal that, but if he was 18, then it sounds like Foley was just being a scumbag, and not a criminal.
The age of consent is 16 or 17 in D.C. And the new laws about no soliciting for those under 18 were passed this year (by Foley, ironically).
So not illegal, just scummy.
A while back, on the old version of the site, there was a fun little discussion regarding the book The Party Of Death and, specifically, Derbyshire's review of it.
In that discussion, I made a point that was something like this: There are two kinds of arguments, really. Arguments that are analagous to preaching to the choir and arguments that are analagous to going out and trying to convert the heathen.
Put another way, there are arguments that are best for giving in front of people who already agree with you and the arguments stabilize their agreement and reassure them that they made the right decision. There are also arguments that are best for using against people who disagree with you (or, I suppose, are on the fence and still trying to make up their mind).
That was a long preamble to the following statement: I don't think that there is a single person on the face of the planet who will have their opinion on this issue changed by having it pointed out that a fiftysomething congressman hitting on a 16 year-old was not, technically, illegal. No, not even one.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
is that the "story" is that the congressman was hitting on 16 year olds. Now we see that the IM's in question were to an 18 year old. The "story" doesn't match the original details. Now don't let anyone think I'm trying to minimize Foley's behavior, because I still believe he should be horewhipped. However as the facts come out we can easily see that the attacks on the Speaker appear more and more like the political hatchet job this is. I'm not a big fan of Hastert's, but if all he knew about were e-mails to an 18 year old page vs. sexually explicit IM's to a 16 year old, then his original response to tell foley to knock it off appears a lot more reasonable.
Well, if you remember 1998, you weren't really there, man.
Wait, wrong cliche'.
Anyway, I was at the tail end of my "sensitive new-age guy" (or SNAG) phase. And I could not *BELIEVE* that the democrats were defending Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. I couldn't *BELIEVE* it. It completely messed with my world view.
"WHAT THE (redacted) (redacted), DUDE!", I reasoned. "HE'S (redacted) THE HELP!!!" I had it pointed out to me that Monica was of age and it was consensual. "DUDE!", I rejoined, "HE WAS HER BOSS!!!" I had it pointed out to me that, technically, he wasn't responsible for telling her what to do. "DUDE!!!", the conversation continued, "HE WAS THE PRESIDENT AND SHE WAS AN INTERN! HE SHOULD BE (redacted) THE TROPHY WIVES OF THE SENATORS AND/OR CONGRESSMEN!!!"
The defenses mounted and piled and neither my side nor the other got anywhere in our little chats.
I'm experiencing deja vu.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
From the producers of Lost and The Big Lebowski, the new miniseries, The Starr Report. Brought to you by ABC.
"Every time some nitwit college student burns a flag on camera, that's one less idiot who can ever run for public office." - Crank
if it turns out that every single IM and email violated no actual criminal law?
I just find the whole prospect of 50 year old men and teenagers creepy, icky and gross. Part of this may be that I can't look at teenagers and imagine wanting to have sex with them-they look like kids, and I am still a little over 10 years from hitting 50.
I don't think it excuses his behavior, I still think he should resign. If it turns out all was legal, then I guess he will be breathing a sigh of relief-but it doesn't make a huge difference for me.
From the Drudge story: "A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday."
And, again, this is one instance out of what appears to be serial behavior. So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates he took care to become sexually suggestive/explicit only with those 18 and older. I'm not saying we won't see such proof, just that it's not yet surfaced.
Why this story won't go away lightly, even if ABC screwed up on the age of the recipient of some of the more salacious published IM exchanges, is because Foley's behavior is gaining definition as serial in nature over a course of (possibly) a decade. And I don't see how that won't sink current House leadership, at least in reputation, if not in title.
At the worst (and least likely, I'd think), it looks like leadership knew full well what was going on but chose to ignore it for whatever reasons.
At the very, very best, even if leadership wasn't aware of jack squat until last week, it looks like it wasn't capable enough to set in place the machinery necessary to root out something as off-putting as Foley's ongoing behavior and nip it in the bud (regardless of whether some in the media or the politcal oppo had info they chose to sit on until now). Which in itself will come across as astonishing, as information regarding that type of serial behaviour would likely find more than one pipeline through which it could percolate towards the top for investigation; and if the command and control apperatus looks inefficient/inept, that obviously reflects poorly on those in charge.
Am I reading this right? Or does someone see something I'm overlooking?
argument, you end up exposing the congressional democrats as much as the GOP.
Now the dems didn't have leadership power, but they could have taken concerns to the ethics committee or Page board as easily as the GOP.
I just don't buy a "everyone in the GOP knew he was doing this to Pages, but nobody in the DNC knew" congress just doesn't keep secrets that well.
Yeah, I mean where do Democrats get off going after republicans over sexual perversions? Where would they get a hair brained idea like that? It's not like there was a crime committed, then covered up and ignored by the republican leadership. Why should Democrats get upset over something like that?
And of course Democrats are weak on terrorism. It's not like they haven't caught OBL, or that terrorism has been inflamed because of a needless war in the Middle-East started by America, just like OBL said we would do. It's not like that ever happened.