Who Was ABC's Source and What Did The Source Do To Protect House Pages?
It seems they rather wanted to score political points than actually do something to protect the pages.
By Erick Posted in 2006 — Comments (152) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Let's remember three things about Mark Foley.
(1) Foley is a ****bag who should have been driven from Congress in November of last year when these matters started popping up.
(2) It appears from all press reports thus far that neither the Speaker nor any other Republican in leadership had knowledge of anything beyond the original creepy email and the family involved did not want to have the matter pursued further and be placed in the spotlight.
(3) ABC News's source did have access to the damning IM's and emails and apparently had them months and months ago.
Read on . . .
The House leadership is guilty of handling this badly, but if press reports are to be believed, they had no idea what a ****bag Foley really was via these very explicit IM's he was sending out.
But, ABC's source(s) clearly did know Foley was sexually harassing teenage boys. And instead of doing anything to stop Foley when they found out, they held on to the information for political gain -- they waited until a month before the election to spring their little trap.
This, my friends, is just how the Democrats have operated and would probably operate if they took back Congress. This is just like how they've handled Iraq. Instead of offering any plan to make any person or House Page safer, they've leaked damning information to the media at politically opportune times.
The Democrats have no plan except surrender in Iraq and they are doing everything possible to distract from their plan.
But the question still remains: What did ABC's Democrat leaning sources know, when did they know it, and what did they do once they knew it to protect House Pages?
« When Negative Ads Backfire — Comments (4) | Again . . . — Comments (20) »
Who Was ABC's Source and What Did The Source Do To Protect House Pages? 152 Comments (0 topical, 152 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
ABC did not have possession of the emails, but ABC's source(s) did have possession and gave them to ABC once the initial charges were made.
scandal, knowing that the IMs were horrendoud in nature and could carry a lot of power.
I think the problem is that everywhere I read nobody is really making a distinction between the emails and the IMs people think they are the same thing and from the same kid (it is my understanding the IMs were from a different Page and it was several years ago).
One thing that is concerning me though, are the reports that Page's were being warned away from Foley-why wasn't anyone doing anything about this years ago?
Congressman Studds (D-Ma)was caught trying to fix thirty three unpaid parking tickets for his male "friend". Congressman Studds retired from Congress unphased and unperturbed in 1996.
Congressman Barney Franks (D-Ma) was caught cavorting with a male aid in House of Representatives washroom. Congressman Franks is still a Member of Congress.
Quite frankly, as far as the voters of the State of Massachussets are concerned, you could be seen cavorting on the House Floor with a goat, calf, sheep, or dog during a live State of the Union telecast and it just wouldn't matter, they'd vote you back in as usual the next election.
There's a survey floating around today that totals up the party affiliations, D vs R, of the Congress members who have been caught since 1975, with either their hands in the cookie jar, or their body parts where they didn't belong.Its overwhelmingly Democrat by a two to one margin. That's just the nature of the Democratic Party, some of their politicians
get their start under not so sanitary conditions and they carry these bad "work" habits with them into office.
Right now, I'm thinking about buying Nancy Pelosi a bottle of Povidone Iodide Solution, sending it to her, and telling her to use liberally after next shaking hands with Barney Franks. You just can't tell where those hands might have been.
"Congressman Barney Franks (D-Ma) was caught cavorting with a male aid in House of Representatives washroom. Congressman Franks is still a Member of Congress."
Barney Frank has been openly gay since 1987. I've never heard the washroom story before, and a Google search turned up nothing. What's your source?
Foley, on the other hand, has crafted laws to prosecute internet predators, his own petard which will likely hoist him right into the slammer. (See, Alanis, now THAT is ironic.)
The big story is not the gay sex, but rather the apparent cover-up of child predation by powerful men for mere political expediency.
Ignatov
Conservative Republican from Maryland who had sex with young men. He, too, blamed alcohol.
And it was Barney Frank, not Gerry Studds, who fixed the parking tickets.
Quite a fact-challenged post there.
openly gay since 1987, but that does not give him rights or privileges not granted to others who are not of his sexual persuasion. I did do a Google search and found the following, which not only shows the hypocrisy of the dems when you consider their votes to censure and expel Frank vs. their head-hunting for Republican leaders today, but also shows that Foley had the decency to resign immediately, while Frank did not. A crime is a crime, and it brings shame and dishonor to the House of Representatives, whether the crime involves children or adults. Anyway, if you do an in depth Google search, you will find the following:
"Frank used the influence of his office on behalf of a male prostitute. Frank, who tried to fix his parking tickets, had hired and paid him $85 after seeing an ad for a "hot bottom" in the Washington Blade. The Ethics Committee had recommended a reprimand of Frank. The full House voted 390-38 against expulsion. It voted 287-141 against censure. Yet Frank was guilty of several felonies. "The truth of the matter," said Congressman William Dannemeyer, who sponsored the resolution to expel Frank, "is that Mr. Frank has admitted that he committed a felony on numerous occasions in the District of Columbia…" These included the crime of sodomy, which was then a felony. And prostitution was another violation of the law. "Unfortunately," Dannemeyer went on to say, "the ethics committee did not list in its recommendations to the House anything about the commission of the felonies that I have described and the misdemeanors. I think that is a significant omission." At the time, 1990, the House was run by liberal democrats.
Bob Dornan was one of only four members to speak in favor of the expulsion. He turned to Frank and said "I will vote for expelling you because you did not have the honor or decency to resign." Dornan said Congress had already lowered its standards when it failed to expel Crane and Studds for their sex scandals."
Tend to prefer that you not cut and paste your info but provide your sources.
thus, a URL or a Link to the posted blurb in your comment would probably be a good idea.
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
Franks was fising tickets illegally and running the male cat house out of his apartment.
Studds was having sex with the boy page, and told the House to stick it when he was censored.
Both were protected by the dems, allowed to get re-elected, and either served until retired (Studds) or is still there (Franks).
rightys are afraid of open debate
You fellas dont need to worry. You cant handle any opinions that disagree with your own so I will be limited to one post befroe being banned. So Unamerican.
[Not as much as, say, whining. But clearly you want to be tossed, so what the heck: we grant you your wish. Let us know via the contact link about how you spoke truth to power!]
[And, for the love of God, try to catch at least one Tarantino movie. You're making the blogosphere look bad. - Moe Lane]
Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from Congress after "sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him flirting with a 16-year old boy.
Republican executive Randall Casseday of the conservative Washington Times newspaper was arrested for soliciting sex from a 13-year old girl on the internet.
Republican chairman of the Oregon Christian Coalition Lou Beres confessed to molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
Republican petition drive manager Tom Randall pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 14, one of them the daughter of an associate in the petition business.
Republican County Chairman Armando Tebano was arrested for sexually molesting a 14-year-old girl.
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Mayor Tom Adams was arrested for distributing child pornography over the internet.
Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was sentenced to six years in prison for molesting two 8-year old girls, one of whom appeared in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican campaign worker, police officer and self-proclaimed reverend Steve Aiken was convicted of having sex with two underage girls.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Republicans SHOULD be held to a higher standard. We need to clean the filth out of the party, which we usually do. They resign immediately, some almost too quickly. However, not in Foley's case, it should have ended sooner.
Reprobates are a special interest group of the DEMOCRATS. Let's keep it that way.
Foley's already out. So we can either stay silent, and let the Democrats control the analysis of what happened, or we can join in.
I'd rather that we join in, what with an election coming and all.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
that a lie unanswered becomes a fact in 24 hours. We have to be part of the dialogue so nobody thinks a lack of expression means we condone anything wrong.
As an independent voter and former Catholic who was attacked by a priest at 14, I take exception to your characterizing Democrats as the party of reprobates. Perhaps you should google republicans and pedophiles and convictions.
I am the father of a thirteen year old boy and a sixteen year old girl. Pedophiles are the worst of the lowest: mandatory castration is fine in my book. Yet you seem to want to blame a political party of one stripe for this behavior, and then question the source- the messenger- instead of those who knew about it and chose not to investigate further. If one of my children came home and told me something sexually inappropriate had occurred at school, you bet damn well I would have investigated. I would not have used the post mortem excuse of saying "it was merely inappropriate". Look for fire when you smell smoke- unless it is politically dangerous? For the seemingly knowledgable Republican leadership to have hidden this- or not bothered to further investigate- is a crime in and of itself. Yet you blame the messenger.
I hid my attack from my good Catholic mother until I was 18, and then only during a verbal barrage wherein she began "Had I only followed the Church...", I wouldn't be having the 18- year old problems I then faced. I can understand the page's parents wish to keep this out of the limelight- I've been there. It's nice to see that many of the comments here provide the precaveat of how despicable Foley's behavior is. Fine- but don't think for a minute that your party is awash with the pure and untainted, and that is the province of the Democrats. Go ahead and google my suggestions. Your knowledge can provide a belated yet somewhat suitable mea culpa.
Thomas Payne
.. essentially boils down to you saying that if Republicans sat on it it's terrible, but if Democrats did, "so what".
I learned when I was thirty that the priest who attacked me had gone on to atack others in various parishes around the country. I was a child when it happened: I would rather have left it behind. It was in essense politically expedient for the adults at the time to bury it. No- democrats, republicans, whoever- they should have taked care of this immediately. But, as in my case, it was too embarrassing- and the fallout was probably the same.
Thomas Payne
First of all, if true your alleged history with the church has nothing to do with this thread or the subject at hand. Your sophistry is a poor attempt to associate all Republicans as promulgators of like despicable actions. Frankly, whether deliberate or not that is dishonest and unsupported pablum.
I suggest unless you have something relative and useful to say, don’t post.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
What I have related is true. And relevant. If adults of any color or stripe knew about this and buried it, either by inaction or design- as in what happened to me decades ago- they should be held accountable. IMMEDIATELY. Not apropos or germaine to this discussion? I though we were discussing values and responsibilities here. You don't see the attempted rape of a 14 year old as relevant to the soliticitation of another minor- both by authority figures? Why would you assume I am fabricating this story? Where is your disconnect?
Perhaps you don't like the notion that I can draw analogies from a defining life experience of my own, and deliver a message based on wisdom gained. It seems that you are intent on killing a messenger.
Thomas Payne
You want anyone who knew of this and failed to act "held accountable. IMMEDIATELY." but then complain everyone is "killing the messenger" when they ask "when did the messenger know while failing to act?" Make up your mind.
I can name two Democrat Congressmen who in the past decade have been exposed for having sexual relations with minors and were not held to account, Reynolds and Studds, one because he was pardoned by a Democrat President, Bill Clinton. You can’t name a single Republican Congressman from any decade where that is the case. Heck, we throw ours out, Gengrich and Livingston, for mere infidelity with adults. Democrats spent the better part of a year telling us “everybody does that”. My party is not perfect, but don’t tell me we don’t have the moral high ground and then some on these matters.
So you cite a couple of democrats. Do you have the moxie to read this list at: http://www.armchairsubversive.com/
As I have said repeatedly- I am an independent, I am not affiliated with any party. I am 48 and have NEVER missed a vote for 30 years. You can be Republican- that's fine by me. But the right's seemingly necessary reaction to lump in everyone who is not of their ilk is very disturbing. Democrats do this as well- though not with the same efficiency. Hooray to you!
But now, we are discussing pedophilia. And you try the party line thing. Your man was caught with the boy and it's a liberal problem? Get off it.
Thomas Payne
"Your man was caught with the boy and it's a liberal problem?"
Is that a KnownFact? I think he was trolling for the boy, but as far as I know had not gotten the boy, that was a Democrat that was censored for "nailing" a page, a girl by the way. Rep. Studds(sp) 1983.
But you are right on one thing, partisanship is very strong to now days young Padawan learner. Darth Pelosi and Reed likes it that way.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
That one foul thing balances another? Talk about partisanship. How about ethics instead? If you need to go back 23 years to find an example of this for your reasons, perhaps you are not living in the real world at all. It's your house that is dirty now-spend some time cleaning that, instead of ruminatin' on the old neighbors' trash.
Thomas Payne
but no e-mails about how to make a fetus
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
was assaulted by a youth leader when she was 13.
She was cooperative with his moves, and helped him cover it up for awhile. The pastor, inspite of my immediate protests and reporting when we first suspected, did little to nothing. Until my daughter was ready to talk about it, nothing happened. We kept this very quiet. No local news. No big actions against the Church. The creep SOB is in prison now for parole violation and repeat. The daughter is doing pretty well in her life.
Which is all to say that I am pretty understanding with how people can react slowly and in shock when they find trusted persons abusing trust and faith.
What I don't like is accepting it for political advantage, which is not what happened with Foley at all.
and didn't contact authorities, should be prosecuted if the IMs constitute criminal behavior.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The fact is, Foley is a predator and a pervert. He needs to go, regardless of his party. Should the "source" have gone to the authorities? Yeah, probably.
But unless the "source" was helping Foley, s/he has committed no crime. There is no requirement under the law to come forward, only to answer questions when asked by authorities.
Get off his/her back, and make it clear that Foley does not represent the GOP.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
Don't be so quick to assume the source(s) had no legal obligation to come forward. In some jurisdictions some persons do have such an obligation . . . doctors, lawyers, and some others. I do not know who had this information . . . but if he/she had it months ago, then he absolutely should have disclosed it . . . not just "probably."
Foley should go to jail based on the IMs I saw on ABC, assuming he sent them and the intended recipient was underage.
But keeping quiet about this is outrageous. Doing so for political gain is despicable.
Foley is sick. He needs to be in re-hab (as he is according to news reports) and he needs to be in jail, if the evidence against him holds up. But . . . whoever sat quietly on this did so with calculated intent. That is evil. ABC should report that person's name. If I represented the boy, we'd have a real legal showdown on that. I don't know if it was illegal because I don't know who it was and in what jurisdiction the act or acts occurred. But I suspect that this person let that child be endangered . . . and apparently did so to help Democratic candidates.
Shame on him or her and shame on ABC for not reporting it.
As you point out, depending on local law, one has a legal obligation to report abuse right after discovering evidence of it. This was one of the major problems in the clerical abuse scandals.
Ethically, one certainly has an obligation to do something on a timely basis, not withhold information until it is strategically advantageous to leak it in the runup to an election.
"If I..."
"I don't know..."
"...in what jurisdiction..."
"But I suspect..."
"...and apparently..."
Five suppositions in your last paragraph, and that's just a quick glance-through.
By and large, there is no requirement for anyone to come forward about illegal acts they may or may not have seen, unless directly questioned by authorities. Yes, doctors have been judged to have a duty, and in some cases lawyers and others. Most other people are not required to come forward.
Yes, whoever did it should have gone to the police; but by going to the media, he or she has actually helped the Republicans. Foley got a chance to resign before he got arrested. Is that an excuse? No. Is it right? No.
Should s/he go to jail? No.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
The left is crying out "won't someone please think of the children?"
The heart of the scandal politically is not whether or not Foley is a predator or a pervert. What the left is firing about is Republicans allegedly sitting on the information and being, therefore, complicit in putting teens at risk.
The question of whether or not Democrat operatives were in fact the ones sitting on damning information is rather important. In fact it is the crux of the political aspect of the scandal.
Get off his/her back? I don't think so!
then yes, sitting on the info and then bringing it about for political gain is a terribly unethical thing, and s/he should be chastised. But we don't know who the source is or why the information was released to the media instead of police.
And unless someone can come forward with a law for the District of Columbia that states you must come forward if you have information about abuse of this kind; I will continue to say that, while the "leaker" may have done something unethical and wrong, it was not illegal.
"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."
--Thomas Jefferson
You're arguing a minor point. The left is roaring about a cover-up.
The left is contending that Republicans sitting on information put kids at risk.
If the truth is that the Republicans had no damning evidence of a crime against children but the democrats did and they sat on it for political gain ... how can you possibly fidn that that is that not of interest?
but the democrats did and they sat on it for political gain
There's no proof that it was a Democrat that sat on the evidence, although I admit from what we know right now that that does seems to be the mostly likely possibility.
But, it could have been a low level Republican that had this knowledge and had tried to get his bosses to listen and react and finally, out of frustration, went to the press. I mean, there are more Republicans walking around the hall of Congress than Democrats. And Republicans hold all the key positions of power.
So I query, if you were that aid with that knowledge and you ran into a wall of resistance when trying to deal with this problem in the official proscribed manner, just how would you have handled it? Knowing full well that a misstep could cost you your job and career.
I don't think that would have been much of a concern. If you were an aid and you really wanted to make the story public you could have found a million ways to do it. I don't think the aids themselves really wanted to make it public, though. It was too much fun! And Rep. Foley knew that he was "protected" by that wall of internal silence.
Think about what you just said for a second: you're a Congressional aide or page and you have firsthand knowledge about how a Congressman is quite deliberately soliciting male minors. And you are one of the recipients. Do you like the attention? In some cases, I think you would. I think some of the people in this case didn't come forward because they thought it was frankly innocuous conduct.
Selective quote. I said IF it turns out etc. etc.
I didn't say anything about proof. I'm arguing against two people who, for inexplicable reasons, find blog speculation to be problem.
You are also confusing what knowledge we are talking about. The knowledge of the IMs is the potentially withheld information, and the question of who withheld it is quite pertinent.
was a Soros funded group.
That would be dems, although not the official office holding variety, but then they would be smart enough not to have their hands on the actual IMs.
I do wonder how the Soros group got the IMs.
The point is the whole legislature needs a good cleaning..Dem Reps no matter. We are talking about under age children.
Why do so many leftists come here and lie? Quit lying. It's ridiculous that you don't see just how wrong it is what Foley did, without lying and saying he was going after children.
Oh wait, I know why you have to tell that lie: Because otherwise Foley's just like Bill Clinton.
Stop lying, you amoral liar.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
The over/under on this luminary's particular trip to The Pile™ is currently holding at 6-hours at TradeSpots.
-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"
And lemme sew up those pockets, unsew those lips... why, yes, you should have a lie down.
And stay down.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
and if the source was a page, one possibly afraid to do so before given the fact Foley was a very powerful Congressman?
We are doing the samething we're accusing the Dems of doing: Speculating.
Not exactly. We are speculating. And checking. We being bloggers and independent voters.
They are issuing decrees from on high about the inherent corruption in the republican party, and disseminating their version of information, one possibly based on exactly the type of cover-up they are speaking out against, into every possible media venue. They being elected Democrats and Democrat party leadership.
Not exactly the same thing.
ABC News has reported it got the nasty IMs from pages the day after it ran with the already known, less explicit one the House Gop leadership has admitted to knowing about for atleast months. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
So now you're not saying "we" are just doing the "same thing" we're accusing "them" of? Just following you here. Now it's not speculation anymore?
Those republicans who have admitted to anything haven't admitted to sitting on anything that is illegal or predatory as far as I've heard. The IMs were not known to them.
I'm afraid the point of your replies here escapes me.
who sat on what for how long and what additional risks these underage pages were left subjected to will be of little import to the media and the left.
What will matter is the extent to which they can paint the entirety of the party(Republican) with the broad brush of something...ANYTHING that may help them re-take control of government. While "children" were at risk, political opportunists on both sides wrung their hands...some waiting for an opportune moment, others hoping it would go away. Foley is already paying his piper-the man's life is ruined and over, and justly so. Whether he needs to go to jail is fodder for later analysis, depending on what ultimately comes out that is FACTUAL...not speculative. Either way he is done.
I would rather see ALL who behaved with calculation pay THEIR piper as well. I suspect we will NEVER know who had this and sat on it if they are Dem operatives, and you can better bet if it was a Repub we'll know in 48 hrs. The whole thing is just a fiasco...and reminds me again why I am not in politics for a living. Chastisement, admonishment, and an occasional attaboy for politicians is much more personally rewarding than swimming in a lake of piranhas.
Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.
In attacking Matt Drudge and the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth than it is about talking about their sources for this story.
But can't they step back for a moment and savor the delicious predicament they find themselves in? I've known so many liberals who have badmouthed Matt Drudge over the years -- guys who sit behind desks and make photocopies for feminist professors and also write occasional pieces for the Chicago Reader and such noteworthy publications as sweeps-week literature for their law schools -- who have called Matt Drudge "Sludgie" and a lot of worse terms.
Now even ABC admits Matt Drudge is setting the tone. And the astonishing thing is that their anger is largely misplaced, because most of what Drudge does amounts to selecting among stories that *they* have already published!!
Anyway, I'm sure that ABC has gone into full defensive mode and is circling the wagons. But that doesn't mean we should stop asking.
ABC News has cited the pages themselve as their source. Is there evidence to the contrary?
haven't had timt to learn how to use the spellchecker.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
To help answer your question, about who was ABC's source and what did they do to protect House pages, you might want to take a look at this group, CREW, which claims that
"On July 21, 2006 CREW received a set of emails, allegedly from Rep. Foley to a former House page, which it sent to the FBI later that day."
http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=163
I don't know of any evidence that ABC knew that CREW had reported matters to the FBI. And therefore ABC is not absolved of responsibility for investigating Foley's actions and making their own report to the FBI.
We should be asking ABC what it did to protect the OTHER pages, besides the recipient of the "overly friendly" emails. In particular, it appears from the emails, that another maie page, named "Will," was indeed an object of interest of Foley.
This young man, Will, was clearly in danger, as you can see from the first set of emails (Foley refers to Will being underage and in "great shape") http://www.citizensforethics.org/filelibrary/FoleyEmailExchangeUpdated.p...
It appears that the parents of the emails recipient (let's call him "Page A") was informed about this matter, but what did ABC do to contact Will's parents to make sure that he was not in danger?? It is conceivable that ABC did contact Will's parents and that after being informed of the matter, they asked that everything be kept quiet, but I have not heard ABC make this defense of its own inaction. We have only heard that the parents of Page A make the request that the matter be kept quiet. But again, to repeat, we do not know that Will was protected or that his parent agreed that this matter should not be pursued.
Clearly, ABC News has a lot of explaining to do!
That our friendly Senator from New York and his protege over at CREW have a tremendous amount of interest in this story. I wonder why CREW would want to so deeply involve themselves in this with only a little over a month to go before the election? Could it be something that Chuck Schumer has had in the works all this time?
is that the information went to Reynolds of the NRCC first and then Hastert. That just looks bad.
Reynolds is in charge of getting Republicans elected/re-elected.
Since he was told first, it makes it look like the priority was to get Foley re-elected instead of protecting the pages.
I've gotten lost in the chain of events though, so I don't recall whose decision it was to tell Reynolds first. But that to me was the first error.
I'm not implying that is a coverup, but if you were going to notify someone other than the speaker, why not the chair of the ethics committee.
It looks an awful lot like Melanie Sloan and Chuck Schumer knew an awful lot about this back in July. It looks as though the two of them might have had quite an agenda surrounding the release of this information.
TeddyMalone writes, "What disturbs me most is that the information went to Reynolds of the NRCC first and then Hastert. That just looks bad."
But this is NOT true. It is a major distortion by the media! This has nothing to do with Reynold's role as head of the HRCC.
The truth, as everyone on the Hill knows, is that Reynolds got involved because his chief of staff, Kirk Fordham, was Mike Foley's chief of stsff for 10 years.
And the Palm Beach Post is reporting that Fordham is now working with Foley again:
Kirk Fordham, who worked as Foley's chief of staff for 10 years, returned to Foley's side to advise him during the past couple of days.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/nation/epaper/2006/09/30/s...
The media would rather paint the Republicans as having a devious scheme to politicize something like this horrible matter, when a much simplier explanation exists! Fordham was just helping an old friend.
I want to know what Melanie Sloan and Charles Schumer knew about this subject from the first day. I want to know why Melanie and her organization knew about this matter back in July, according to a post in this thread, and nothing was done about it except, perhaps, feeding that information to ABC News. I think that there's quite a few more unanswered questions that the public needs to know, and if ABC News is being circumspect and honest in its reporting, they should begin by asking Charles Schumer and Melanie Sloan why they knew what they knew when they did, and decided to do what they did with that information.
and nothing was done about it except, perhaps, feeding that information to ABC News
On July 21, 2006 CREW received a set of emails, allegedly from Rep. Foley to a former House page, which it sent to the FBI later that day
CREW 10/2/06
It's because we don't know the extent and the duration of the involvement between Melanie Sloan and Chuck Schumer that nobody can make a reasonable decision right now about what the true motives behind this revelation were. There's quite a bit more information behind that curtain, I would wager. And even if there isn't Senator Schumer should want to exonerate himself and distance himself from anything so sordid.
But I don't think that's the case. I personally think that both he and Melanie had quite a bit of knowledge of this case, that extends back long before July and the announcement on CREW's website. Only a forensic investigation of their records can prove or disprove that assertion, and I think one should be conducted, with all deliberate speed.
CREW and Schumer were being good citizens by sending that information to the FBI back in July. But I'm saying that they may very well have known about the problem prior to that. How did CREW receive that set of emails from Rep. Foley, a Republican? Where did those emails come from? It really is very curious to me that CREW would be the first to break this story to the FBI. Somewhere in those email records there will be an indication of who sent them, where they originated, and what mail servers they passed through before arriving at CREW. And that's really crucial information, when you think about it.
I'm not claiming anything, just pointing out that CREW sent the emails to the FBI last summer.
Obviously the emails didn't come to CREW from Congressman Foley. Here is what is known about the emails.
Here is what the St Petersburg Times said about their role in this.
In November of last year, we were given copies of an email exchange Foley had with a former page from Louisiana. Other news organizations later got them,too.
[...]
The Louisiana boy's emails broke into the open last weekend, when a blogger got copies and posted them online. Later that week, on Thursday, a news blog at the website of ABC News followed suit
St Petersburg Times 9/30/06
The blog that first posted the emails is StopSexPredators. This is a relatively new blog with very few entries. They posted the emails on 9/24/06.
CREW had the emails on July 21, 2006 and tirned them over to the FBI on that day. CREW didn't published the emails until late last week.
The e-mails were posted Friday on Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington's Web site after ABC News reported their existence
AP 9/29/06
It gets interesting when you look carefully at the emails posted at StopSexPredators on 9/24/06. The emails posted at StopSexPredators do not match the emails posted at CREW, NBC or ABC.
The differences are slight- "Glad" versus "glad"; "Send me an email pic" versus "send me a pic"; "How are you" versus "how are you".
Also note a time stamp at the top of the CREW emails (May 29, 2006).
I think it's clear that someone was trying to get these emails out. Who? I don't know.
I didn't know about the Chief of Staff connection.
I was under the impression that Alexander took the complaint from his page to Reynolds. Though now I don't recall if that was last year or last Spring. The timeline is messed up.
Is there a true timeline somewhere?
and ABC would keep Will, and all the other pages at risk, for purely political reasons.
It is curious that ABC and the rest of the MSM have not interviewed Will's parents. How many male pages named Will could there have been?
Smells like a cover-up to me!
I saw a version online where they blocked out the email addresses of the sender and recepient, but left out the part where the page mentions the other page's name. That was thoughtless on the part of whomever released it. Can you imagine how humiliated that kid would be if he knew?
...how old are the Instant Message transcripts? 1 year? 2 years? 3 years? and who's been sitting on them besides the victim?
You trying to make political hay out of this by saying Media is guilty too. Give up not going to work this time.
I am sure if you called ABC they would say they needed time to check sources and blah blah blah.
How much more clear does this need to be?
If democrat operatives were sitting on the Instant Messages from Foley and republicans were not, then the Democrats are far more guilty of being complicit in Foley's criminal acts.
My understanding is that the emails, while gross and sickening, are not illegal, whereas the instant messages may be an actual crime against a child.
Withholding the instant messages for political gain is despicable. If this happened, it should be uncovered.
Go read americablog and dkos. The course is clear. As the only people interested in the truth, conservatives should be working to figure out who covered up what. The democrats are only interested in how they can use this to call all Republicans everywhere evil.
and that could be a federal crime.
ABC
has posted the following IM exchange:
In another message, Foley, using the screen name Maf54, appears to describe having been together with the teen in San Diego.
Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: :)
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be funThe messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach.
Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see
Foley is scum. Anyone who tried to cover this up for him is scum. Anyone who enabled this in any way is scum. Anyone who withheld evidence of this for ANY reason....is scum.
I hope they put Foley in prison for a long time, if for no other reason than to provide an example for any future scumbag politicians.
You folks can blame the media, blame George Soros, blame Schumer, blame the Dems...it does not change the fact that Foley is scum.
I don't think it serves the GOP well to be looking for excuses for this. Nobody cares who knew what when except the hardcore political junkies. Nobody cares what the legal age of consent is in FL except the lawyers and criminals. Everyone cares about the fact that Foley, a man who was supposedly a leader in the protection of this nation's children. We should help put the SOB in jail and wash our hands of him as quickly as possible.
The dems are trying to make hay on this by demanding the leadership be investigated and/or resign their leadership positions. This from the same liberals who in 1990 refused to censure or expel Barney Frank based on his actions which brought shame and dishonor to the House. In fact, far less than a majority of dems voted to even reprimand him.
The GOP is not looking for excuses for this action by Foley. It is, however, not going to be run over by the likes of the Carville, Begala & Company war room.
> "As the only people interested in the truth, conservatives should be working to figure out who covered up what. The democrats are only interested in how they can use this to call all Republicans everywhere evil.:
That's how politics works these days. Republicans do it, too. (Remember Schiavo?) Neither party has the lock on the "truth", and neither party is above using something for political gain or for demonizing the other side. So I don't think your blanket statement casting one party in white and one in black is warranted. They both have a mix of criminals and good people.
You seem awfully quick to give Hastert and company a free pass on the creepy emails. If the leadership was so sure this was no big deal and Foley hadn't done anything wrong, why did they warn Foley to lay off? And if they thought this was a tempest in a teapot, why didn't they look into the matter a bit more, demonstrate due dilligence just to confirm their opinion. The boy and his family didn't have to be involved in questioning others who might know of Foley's failings.
I've read it took ABC News one day to get from the creepy emails to more muck. Surely, a powerful man like Hastert could discreetly have found some answers. There was smoke. The leadership didn't want to find the fire.
And now they're telling us to focus on the other fires around. So that's "smoke" going to "smoke and mirrors". I don't buy giving the leadership a free pass on this issue. It is not normal for 50 year old men to contact kids about creepy topics and the situation should have been investigated immediately.
That you are correct. Because it took an even more powerful man like Chuck Schumer and his very good friend, Melanie Sloan, to bring this news to us in the manner they decided would be most appropriate. In fact, the FBI should be seizing all of the computers at Melanie Sloan's office over at CREW and investigating what she knew, and when.
So your saying the FBI should sieze Hastert's, Reynold's, Foley's, Shimkus', Shumer's and Sloan's computers?
It seems from some of the entries in this thread that the people at CREW were the last to know about it, so perhaps they had the best picture of what was really going on. Maybe they should be seized first, just to make sure they get all the latest information.
Melanie was an elected representative, so in the course of a criminal investigation, that should make it a little easier for the FBI to seize everything in her possession. I think they should go there now and just do it. I'd personally be happy to help.
...after Hastert raises a stink about the sanctity of Congressional offices, with all the Dems there at his side...OK, maybe not with the Dems at his side this time.
If there is to be an investigation, the FBI should subpoena all of the phone records between any telephones owned or maintained by CREW and Charles Schumer, and they should also sieze and subject to forensic analysis all of the hard drives of the computers at CREW and possibly in Senator Schumer's office, looking for any information that relates to this subject. I think given the information presented in this thread that the FBI would like to have a complete picture of Sloan's and Schumer's involvement in this particular case, and they should.
I'm not sure what it means, but don't Sloan and Schumer have some kind of Loco Parentis responsibility for the congressional page program. After all, isn't Schumer a Senator and therefore partially responsible for managing the page program.
The parents of the kids who become Congressional pages count on Congress, and its agents, to manage the program and make sure the kids are safe and sound, and that the page program is not used as a recuitment vehicle for current and future harrassment. Doesn't Senator Schumer bare SOME responsibility here?
Keep your eyes open now, you are going to see the blurring of the lines between emails and IMs, as has already started in this ABC piece ...
Here is the article title
E-mails Show Foley Sought to Rendezvous with Page
Here is the first paragraph of the story
In addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.
Where magically the emails in the title turn into Internet messages. Clearly not everyone knows there is a difference.
The link is here ...
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/emails_show_fol.html
Since Hastert made a clear distinction between the two in his speech I think you can figure out what is going on. Shades of Plame and her non-status as a secret agent.
You have been warned.
Shepard Smith on Fox making the same mistake. DailyKos, americablog, CNN, Fox News.
They've already blurred the line. The word of the media has been given, that Hastert has been aware of ALL of the current evidence for a year now.
This is why press bias matters. And why we should be doing something about it.
.. about Smith. It was his phrasing. He was interviewing someone else about whether there was a distinction or not.
Is there any wonder why there is such confusion from the public over this? Just about every message board I've frequented and person I've talked with hasn't realized the distinction between the 2005 "overly-friendly" emails and the 2003 sexually explicit IMs. They don't even realize that these communications are between Foley and two different pages.
I find this to be more than just a bit accidental.
screwing up the difference, and most people don't realize there is a difference.
It is also unclear which emails and which IMs go with how many Pages.
AT times it appears as if all the emails and all the IMs involve the one Page, when from what I have seen the weird sort of creepy but not explicit email to the one page in LA is the one Hastert and other leaders were aware of, they weren't aware of the IMs.
Now did they drop the ball and stop digging too soon, with hindsight I think we can all say yes, but whether it was an intentional cover up may be a leap to make.
The first set of emails are not as lurid and explicit as the IMs, but they should have raised red flags.
In the first set of emails to be made public, Foley wrote not only asking a former page for a photograph, but he also writes about another male page, named Will, being underage and having a great body.
I don't think that Chucky Schumer and his crew at CREW are going to get off that easy, by saying the first set of emails where not that bad.
Hastert deserves praise for calling for an investigation as soon as he learned that anything fishy was going on. What is Schumer's excuse? His friends at CREW learned about it in July, and they reported it to the FBI and did nothing else until a month before the election! I hope people see through these cynical political motives!
I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm trying to exonerate Foley, because I'm not. Nobody forced Foley to write the suggestive emails he did, and certainly nobody forced him to engage in the IM discussions he did engage in. At this point I'm wondering a little bit different question: who knew about Foley's behavior and why did they know?
It's a politically hot-button question for Republicans right now, obviously, but really on the most important level it speaks to how much duplicity all our members of Congress are willing to tolerate. I've seen examples of organizations that excused extreme behavior in the past because they didn't want to face the facts. And it's unbelievably common, both among liberals and conservatives. I think the American people should know whether this was not just a personal failing, but whether in this particularly hard-fought election season there were people on the other side of the aisle who knew more about it than they were saying.
to enforce some party discipline!
You've got Hastert claiming that there is a big difference between the awful IMs and the not so bad, but "overly friendly" emails.
But now you have Shelley Moore Capito (R-WVa), one of the 3 members of the House committee supervising the Congressional Page program claiming that the "overly friendly" emails were cause for serious concern.
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., says she was not told about suggestive e-mails that a Florida congressman sent to a 16-year-old former Capitol page, even though she is one of three representatives who oversee the page program.
On Friday, Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., resigned after ABC News revealed those e-mails and other, more sexually explicit Internet-based instant messages between Foley and former male pages.
Several high-ranking House Republicans have known about the e-mails for months, including Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the House Page Board.
Late last year, Shimkus met with Foley about the e-mails. But Shimkus never told Capito or the board’s other member, Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., about them until Friday, according to all three.
“There’s only three of us on the page board. I feel that we should have been informed,” Capito said. “I’m absolutely disgusted by what I’m hearing. I was caught totally unaware.”
Foley sent the e-mails to a former page from Louisiana about one year ago. Foley wrote, “send me an email pic of you as well” and “what do you want for your birthday coming up?” according to ABC News.
Foley also comments on another page, saying he “acts much older than his age...and he’s in really good shape.”
The teen forwarded the e-mails to someone else and wrote, “Maybe it is just me being paranoid, but seriously. This freaked me out,” and that one e-mail was “sick, sick, sick, sick, sick.”
Capito said she would have been very concerned if she had read those e-mails.
“I don’t think it would pass the sniff test,” she said. “Even asking those questions — that is not normal between a 52-year-old adult and a 16-year-old. It’s not like they’re family friends or anything. I think it would raise some serious questions. But I wasn’t given that opportunity.”
http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/+/200610027/Capito+says+she+was+not+told+about+congressman's+e-mails/
What are the Republican talking points?!
Shouldn't Capito be disciplined by the Leadership for contradicting them? They must do something about her, or they will look very weak.
Tony Snow was very clear this morning, and so too was Hastert, that the emails were no cause for concern. Capito needs to get with the program!
These discussions threads began on notes of disgust and rightful indignation, and are now gravitating towards a CYA temperament. We are talking about child abuse here- not political gain. Whose sky is falling on whom?
Thomas Payne
Oh, really. If a 50-plus teacher of my 16 or 13 year old asked them for pictures of themselves in a wink and nod fashion, I would be concerned. Very concerned. As apparently the page's parents were. For Hastert to say there was no cause for concern is just unbelievable. And you want to present a unified front to spin child abuse?
Thomas Payne
be asked to stop contacting their son, they didn't want anything further pursued.
I wonder if they had been more concerned and demanded more of investigation, if more would have been learned then. I am not out to blame the victim, because sometimes backing off and avoiding exposure seems the best course of action in these cases, but I think more pressure from this kids parents may have done more sooner to expose Foley.
if you look at my earlier posts you will see that I have some similar experience in this from my early days. My point is that the parents were put in an uncomfortable but not untenable situation which should have been addressed by both them and the oversight committee on the Hill. To cut any kind of deal- which agreed silence certainly is- and in effect supress the reality of this was up to the adults. They all should have looked at this as a smoking gun- and investigated thoroughly and immediately. This languished for months, while Foley ws the co-chair of the committee writing law to prevent this very type of thing. How absurdly ironic; how richly cynical. And yet some posters here are busy proposing strategy and tactic to ameliorate the damage. How richly ironic; how absurdly cynical.
Thomas Payne
when the parents don't want anything done further.
From what I have read, Hastert didn't even see the actual emails (unless this has changed since this morning).
And I can understand the desire to not say anything. Especially when the person involved is a wealthy congress member, they just wanted the interaction to stop with their child.
As for leaving him in charge of the committee-on the one hand he didn't appear to do much to stonewall any legislation and from the looks of it, it sounds like he will likely fall to the laws he helped write and pass. So in this case, he really may just reap what he sowed. Although, I think a key will be authenticating the actual IM-if they get them authenticated so the pass muster in a court of law, and get the Pages on board to testify, I suspect there isn't going to be much of a defense. But then I sort of see a "no contest" type plea coming, if charges are filed.
Maybe he should have gone ahead and had sex with the page. Certainly this behavior would not have risen to the level of impeachment.
Don't pretend that you give a crap about the child or the parents. Please.
We'd have more people arguing that it wasn't illegal because the age of consent is 16. ("If there's grass on the field...")
And that would make what happened okay.
Besides, it's not like he perjured himself about it.
And then even the libertarians like me could be all freaked out because they felt like social conservatives because they would actually be arguing that fiftyish men should not be asking to grab the (redacted) of their pages when said pages were still in positions where they had to study for AP exams.
Soon thereafter, heads would explode.
All in all, I'm glad that I'm only freaked out that I'm arguing about congressmen cybering their pages.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Get all the truth out on the table NOW.
People should be accountable for what did they know and when did they know it. Naturally, that includes people who chose to delay their disclosures until now, regardless of party.
It is in the nature of predators to conceal their behavior from scrutiny, frequently including scrutiny by themselves. Republicans have no special immunity.
Before commenting, I want to make clear that I am in no way defending what Foley has done. Trying to seduce high-school boys is perversion, and beneath the level of personal dignity required to serve in the United States Congress. Foley does not deserve to be in Congress.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5909
However, Clarice Feldman at The American Thinker has an interesting take on this--she wonders:
"that overnight after ABC broadcast and published the innocuous email correspondence it was suddenly sent years-old, salacious Instant Messages purportedly between Foley and men (ages and identities not disclosed)?"
Feldman also wonders about the motivation for the "conflation" between relatively tame E-mail messages and the salacious Instant Messages:
"Is it believable that Soros’ C.R.E.W. did not share the email correspondence it had with ABC, and time the release of them and the announcement that they had forwarded them to the FBI for investigation, to coincide with the ABC story? The IM’s carried the far more salacious content, and their provenance is still murky. When and how did C.R.E.W. come into possession of the IM’s, and when did they contact the FBI?
The timing of the two-step release is critical to the political efficaciousness of the operation. The public is being led to conflate the different sets of correspondence (mildly inappropriate emails versus salacious IM messages), leading most people to believe the sexually explicit stuff was what Hastert had seen.
All that the House leadership saw was “overly friendly” emails. No smoking gun, but cause for concern. Had the leadership done more at the time, it might well have been accused of launching a witch hunt on the flimsy basis of too-friendly emails."
According to Feldman, the boy who received the E-mails was told BY HIS PARENTS not to make them public--they were probably trying to protect him from other sexual predators. The Instant Messages were sent earlier, but publicized later, with the idea of creating a scandal shortly before the election, and trying to blame the GOP leadership for covering it up.
Somebody "in the know" needs to investigate WHO received these messages, WHEN they received them, and HOW LONG they sat on them waiting for the opportune moment to publicize them. If these messages are in fact "years-old" (according to Feldman), they could have been publicized as soon as they were sent, possibly preventing pages hired later from being preyed on by Foley, but whoever knew of them DELIBERATELY kept them secret until about a month before the election.
Speaker Hastert, and the rest of the GOP leadership need to make clear, via press conferences if necessary, the difference between E-mails and Instant Messages, and WHEN all of them learned of the salacious IM's. They rightly threw Foley under the bus, but they can't allow themselves to be accused of covering up for Foley.
The timing of this revelation is particularly suspect--the day Congress adjourns before the election, after having passed important legislation concerning interrogation of accused terrorists, building a 700-mile fence along the Mexican border, and the defense appropriations bill. Without the Foley revelation, GOP members of the House and Senate could legitimately tout everything they had done for national security, and criticize those who opposed them during their campaigns.
With this critically timed revelation about Foley, voters are treated to lots of MSM propaganda about GOP perverts, real issues important to voters outside Foley's district never get mentioned, yet whoever knew about these IM's allowed Foley to get away with this for "years", and revealed it not to protect pages, but to used one slimy Republican to slime the entire party.
This won't be easy, but the message needs to get out: Foley was a sexual predator, and was deservedly thrown under the bus, but the Republican Party does NOT condone such behavior or cover up for such people.
One would have thought that Foley would have learned his lesson after seeing what happened to former Governor McGreevey. Oh, yeah, right, McGreevey is now making millions on his book. Wrong lesson!
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
2001 — A Republican staff member warns pages “to watch out for Congressman Mark Foley.” A former page says that they were told “don’t get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.” [ABC, 10/1/06]
2003 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) has sexually explicit IM exchanges with an underage boy who worked as a Congressional page. [ABC News, 9/29/06]
SUMMER 2005 — Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sends inappropriate emails to another former Congressional page. [CREW]
SEPTEMBER 2005 — Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), who sponsored the page, learns “of the e-mails from a reporter.” [AP, 9/29/06; CQ, 9/30/06]
FALL 2005 — “Tim Kennedy, a staff assistant in the [Speaker J. Denis Hastert’s] Office, received a telephone call from Congressman Rodney Alexander’s Chief of Staff who indicated that he had an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House page…[Mike] Stokke [Deputy Chief of Staff for Speaker Hastert] called the Clerk and asked him to come to the Speaker’s Office so that he could put him together with Congressman Alexander’s Chief of Staff.” [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
LATE 2005 — Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), Chairman of the House Page Board, “was notified by the then Clerk of the House, who manages the Page Program, that he had been told by Congressman Rodney Alexander (R-LA) about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page.” Shimkus interviewed Foley and told him “to cease all contact with this former house page.” He did not inform Rep. Dale Kildee (D-MI), the only Democrat on the House page Board. [Roll Call, 9/29/06]
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2006 — Alexander tells NRCC chairman Tom Reynolds about “the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander’s.” Reynolds tells Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) about the emails and his conversation with Alexander. [Reynolds Statement, 9/30/06; Roll Call, 9/30/06; Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
SPRING 2006 — House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) learns of “inappropriate ‘contact’ between Foley and a 16-year-old page.” After leaning about Foley’s conduct, Boehner told Speaker of the House J. Denis Hastert who assured Boehner he would “take care of it.” Later, Boehner changed his story and told the Washington Post he didn’t remember whether he talked to Hastert. [Washington Post, 9/30/06; New York Times, 10/1/06]
MAY 10, 2006 — Reynold’s personal PAC, TOMPAC, donates $5,000 to Foley’s campaign. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]
JULY 27, 2006 — Foley writes a $100,000 check to the NRCC, chaired by Reynolds. [New York Daily News, 9/30/06]
JULY 27, 2006 — Foley, still co-chairman of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children’s Caucus, attends a signing ceremony at the White House for the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. [White House, 9/27/06; Talkingpointsmemo, 9/30/06; Washington Post, 10/1/06]
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 — ABC publishes emails between Foley and former page. [ABC, 9/28/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — Foley resigns. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — ABC publishes sexually explict Instant Messages between Foley and several former pages. [ABC, 9/29/06]
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 — “Aides to the speaker [Hastert] say he was not aware until last week of inappropriate behavior by Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., who resigned on Friday after portions of racy e-mail exchanges between him and current and former underage congressional pages became public.” [Chicago Tribune, 9/30/06]
SEPTEMBER 30, 2006 — Hastert admits he was told about the emails by Reynolds in the spring. [Hastert Statement, 9/30/06]
Let's say I own a liquor store. One day a young employee comes to me and says he/she been unwelcomely solicitied by a manager, and asks me to stop his behavior. Knowing this, I ask him to stop it and assume he has. But he doesn't and the employee leaves the store. Some time later- months, even- it turns out that he did not stop harassing employees, and the first one to report it has talked to others about his/her experience. People outside the store. The media gets wind of it and begins to verify, to authenticate and look for patterns. Suddenly I am in deep; an article, with my name and the name of the manager turns up in the papers. Other employees come forward and state similar issues. What do I do? I blame the MSM for not having reported this earlier.
This spin dog don't hunt, guys.
Thomas Payne
if any one of those kids objected, or after contact with a lawyer discovers that he/she objected and can testify at all credibly, unless you mounted and documented a very thorough investigation and acted on the results of that investigation, you as principal are at fault and liable.
I dealt with LOTS of these (not many young kids, but lots of alledged unwelcome or coercive sexual stuff) over the years; if there was the slightest credibility in the allegation, the best the accused got was the German Choice. If any real evidence of wrongdoing, it was dismissal for cause and cut them loose from indemnification. I very happily released the results of administrative investigations to plaintiff's attorney.
In Vino Veritas
And was Foley fired immediately? Not according to the timeline and Hastert's own admissions. Perhaps he, alone, doesn't live in the real world. Let's consider the likely scenario here: if you're a parent, I think you will find my suppositions reasonable.
Page Boy 1 informs his parents that he's been getting creepy messages from the congressman he's been interning with. Perhaps, alternately they intercept or discover an Email written to him by Foley. In either event they counsel their son, as parents in the real world do. They then decide to take action and make a call (or have the family lawyer do it) to the guy in charge of the page program- Alexander? who brings it to someone in leadership. That would be Hastert? The real world of politics begins to spin- a critical seat in Florida; parents who want to keep it under wraps; the co-chair of the protect-the-kids caucus under suspicion- no, make that fingered- what to do?
Well, the P's want to quiet it down; we can't abruptly move him from his position- little too overt, might raise questions- and we can just pretend it never happened. After all, the parents were upset enough to come to us and ask Foley to never contact their son again and said they didn't want the attention. And those Emails they were upset about were, heck, after all, just "over-friendly". We talk to him. That should do it!
Months go by, an election nears. Damn if that thing won't keep banging on the closet door! Hope nobody drops by and opens the thing up...
By the way, I am an avowed independent in Colorado, vote both ways depending on the candidate's stance, consider issues carefully and read the National Review, the Economist, the Atlantic (you should try that one) and about anything I can get my hands on. Liberal? Sometimes. Conservative? Not since conservatism lost any sense of fiscal responsibility. Gotta get ready for the Elk hunt,
Cheers!
Thomas Payne
Assuming that his conduct did not rise to summary dismissal and you properly counseled and admonished the offender and laid out clear ground rules going forward, and the offended employee is satisfied with your actions, then the responsiblity returns to the offended employee to report any further violations.
If any third party discovers that the manager has continued to offend that employee, and that these actions may rise to criminal charges, the third party becomes morally if not legally complicit in the offense. This is compounded if the third party may have reason to believe that there are other actual or potential victims of criminal behavior and that their silence is putting these other people at risk.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
I hire people for a living and know much about employment law and procedure regarding harassment, the compliance certification and operational processes and legal mitigations. I know where you are quoting from. Fine quote- I've been in court where it was cited. My question is whether you feel the Foley should be treated differently than anyone else- as in the purely hypothetical situation I presented earlier?
Thomas Payne
We don't really know how this was handled. I think, assuming that because of the added layer of political liability, that the House leadership would have handled it very carefully trying to be fair to Foley and sensitive to the Page and the wishes of his family and probably being more willing to error on the side of the family's wishes. I am taking at face value the leadership's declaration that they only saw the "creepy" emails and not the indefensible and inexplicable IMs.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Come on now. Parsing words and splitting hairs is an attempt to muddle the now certain fact that a Republican Member of the House of Congress solicitied under-age of consent boys for sex. Historical fact. Don't like it? too bad- it's there for all to see. And you still attempt a spin? Would you feel glee if it were a Democrat? Would your disgust be any less? Why can't you just call for his head and not focus on the spin?
Thomas Payne
In the real world, the employee is gone. Fired. Immediately. The way employers stop this behavior in this day and age is to verify, then fire. Period. I can name ten examples I have personal knowledge of. Therefore:
1) Your analogy holds no water,
2) Any liberal who lectures anyone on this planet about any moral issue is on very, very thin ice, and
3) Foley resigned, as he should have. Studds, Franks, Clinton, Jefferson et al never did / never will.
My first response was misplaced and appears above. But I found a factual error in what I wrote: Foley, unlike those you cite in "the real world", was not "fired immediately". He denied being gay for months and only upon being presented with irrefutable evidence as a pedophile, he resigned under fire in what may be the quickest resignation in congressional history. Talk about cut and run...
My Bad!
Thomas Payne
Thomase Payne, to use your analogy. What if the complainant not only mentioned feeling harrassed himself, but also said that the accused was also expressing interest in another employee, a minor, named "Will". And what if you never did anything to warn Will or his parents, or did anything to protect Will?
That is apparently what the media did when they did not protect Will, even though Foley wrote in the "overly friendly" emails that he was interested in Will, even though Will was underage, and that he was attracted to Will's "great" body.
ABC has a lot of explaining to do!
And I would hope that an FBI investigation will include what and when the media outlet knew of the details. Transparency in government and in media is paramount. However, my point is that, to quote B. Fife: "Nip it in the bud!" This should have never gotten to this point, and if it was alllowed to fester for even the space of a conversation within the House, then certainly it was a political football before the game was televised. Anyone who knew of this in the chain of command should have nipped it to the quick.
Thomas Payne
This discussion here and elsewhere typifies the worst of the twenty-four hour speculation cycle posing as the news cycle.
First, was there a crime? If the pages were under the age of consent and there was sexual contact, there was; that hasn't been firmly established. Seeking or pressuring for sex may or may not be a crime; it takes a lot of facts to establish that.
Did Foley possess any coercive authortity over them even if they were over the age of consent? In some jurisdictions, sexual pressure or contact would be a crime; that too isn't firmly established.
Was the contact unwelcomed and was the fact that it was unwelcomed communicated to Foley? If so, there are the elements of sexual harrassment even if there was no crime otherwise. None of that has been firmly established.
I've done a Helluva bunch of investigations of this sort of thing; everything from high-level appointed officials dipping their pen in company, or in this case state, ink to social workers not understanding the difference between therapy and sex to supervisors pressuring subordinates for dates or sex to cops and correctional officers using their authority to obtain sex. The temptation is always great to call the alleged perp in and say, "you didn't do that did you?" and call it an investigation when they say no. Frankly, that is always what the political principals want; if they can make it go away, that's what they want.
The US Congress is a very thin air zone, and I suspect they have little experience with dealing with this sort of thing. After all, until recently they exempted themselves from most of the rules other employers have had to follow for years. A real employer, even another public employer, would have hauled those pages in and gotten a formal statement and acted on that. We've all been sued enough to have learned how to do that.
And then there's all the righteous moralizing about the dynamics of this. I don't know what most of you do, but I've lived close to the US Senate and close to power in a state government for many years. I know all about "horizontal career moves" in government. I've had a zillion bill drafts or memos for signature delivered to me by some winsome 17 or 18 year old page or clerk in what in another environment would have been described as the "stripper crawl." I've been five words and five minutes from the sack with a subordinate or co-worker far, far more times than I'd like to recall or relate to my wife.
Power is an aphrodesiac, and it doesn't just work on the one that holds the power. I'm not offering this as an excuse; anyone, especially any Republican, who doesn't have the self-discipline to deal with this stuff needs to find something else to do. Hopefully, Hastert et al. gave Foley the German Choice; I know I would have. But as to all the hysteria about what, if any, crime might have been committed and by whom, let's try assembling a little evidence.
In Vino Veritas
Haul in the Pages to testify? 16 year olds in front of a congressional committee? Sorry, but did you who says you have lots of experience in these matters ever consider that? Got a kid that age? I do. THe fact that he resigned and apologized should be enough- yet you want more "proof". Consent with the underaged is sick and illegal. GOT THAT?
Thomas Payne
You're just saying that because he's a homosexual.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
because it's a 52 year old pursuing a 16 year old. I don't care if it's female-male, male-male, or female-female. It's completely out of line and an abuse of power. But I do enjoy your protection of a sexual predator Neil.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
That there are more reasons to be upset about this situation other than the same-sex nature of the relationship.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I have no problem with people who are gay. I have severe problems with sexual predators that prey on children. This is pedophilia- not homosexuality. I am heterosexual by nature and I know enough gay folks to be certain they are homosexual by nature, as well. This never allows allows the rape of children- pedophiles are despicable, and any straight or gay man or woman here would agree.
Thomas Payne
It is still wrong, but pedophilia has a spcific defintion, and it is a sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
16 and 17 year old boys are not prepubescent.
Ephebophilia is the more accurate term, which is sexual attraction to teenagers.
Either way Foley's actions were wrong at the very least on the ethical scale, and likely were wrong in the legal sense.
But for the sake of accuracy, let's not call it what it isn't.
The page committee should have interviewed those/that kid immediately. No testimony, no charge. If there's testimony, you act on it. You need to calm down and learn to deal with facts and evidence. Emotions are for children.
In Vino Veritas
they're the accusers. You protect their rights, bring in their parents, and all that other stuff depending on the jurisdiction. Sixteen year olds lie, sixteen year olds commit murders, sixteen year olds have consensual affairs, often with much older partners. You can argue about the right and wrong of it, but the law makes them sexual adults once they're fourteen to sixteen depending on the jurisdiction and the precise nature of the relationship. A century or so ago, we'd have considered them grown.
I'm not talking about right and wrong here; I'm just talking about laws, evidence, and proof - a very different thing. In most states, as a matter of law a fifty year old can have porno movie sex with a seventeen year old so long as he/she doesn't give him or her a cigarette or a drink in the process. Get real!
In Vino Veritas
It was fine the 52 year old was perving on 16 year olds. That's definitely the standard I want set for my kids.
the question is whether it is legal, and in most jurisdictions, it is unless that person has some sort of coercive authority over the 16 year old. It's this thing about laws rather than opinions or feelings.
I'm not saying that I agree with the state of the law, but I do know the state of the law. If a fifty-two year old Congresman wer hitting on my 16 year old, male or female, the law would be the least of his problems, and they can see if they can find twelve "good men and true" to convict me.
In Vino Veritas
condeming Foley and anyone else who might be involved, be it Dems for holding the story on the left, or Repubs for trying to cover it up on the right(clearly pending investigation) and moving on? I really don't get it? You want to really offend your Values Voters base, then defend a child predator.
I did enjoy Drudge placing the blame on the kid though. That was a new spin.
The fact of values voters is why GOP ers caught in bad behavior RESIGN when caught. We are confident thatthe leadership did not knowingly leave pages prey to a dangerous man. But if they did, then we shall see, and they will pay a price. But what we won't do is put demorats in charge of making law and losing wars.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
ha, good one Gamecocks. The GOP is losing 2 right now. How could the Dems do worse? Start a third war and lose it I guess?
their correspondence to zarqawi confirms they know they have lost or are losing. maybe you didnt know saddam was in custody, his regime removed, taliban removed, UBL in hiding? al qaida decapitated and waterboarded. Millions of purple fingers. iraqi troops killing over 4000 admitted by al qaida in Iraq jihadists. No attacks here in 5 years? libya surrendered.
were we "losing" in germany and japan two months before the end of wwii when casualties spiked?
Liberals are fools on war
and all other issues, kenja(s)?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Not one US soldier was lost to a sniper's bullet in the occupation of post-war Germany.
Apparently there was a plan.
Thomas Payne
LIFE Magazine: Americans Are Losing the Victory in Europe
January 7, 1946
We are in a cabin deep down below decks on a Navy ship jam-packed with troops that’s pitching and creaking its way across the Atlantic in a winter gale. There is a man in every bunk. There’s a man wedged into every corner. There’s a man in every chair. The air is dense with cigarette smoke and with the staleness of packed troops and sour wool.
“Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans,” puts in the lanky young captain in the upper berth, “but…”
“To hell with the Germans,” says the broad-shouldered dark lieutenant. “It’s what our boys have been doing that worries me.”
The lieutenant has been talking about the traffic in Army property, the leaking of gasoline into the black market in France and Belgium even while the fighting was going on, the way the Army kicks the civilians around, the looting.
“Lust, liquor and loot are the soldier’s pay,” interrupts a red-faced major.
The lieutenant comes out with his conclusion: “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” You hear these two phrases again and again in about every bull session on the shop. “Two wrongs don’t make a right” and “Don’t think I’m sticking up for the Germans, but….”
The troops returning home are worried. “We’ve lost the peace,” men tell you. “We can’t make it stick.”
A tour of the beaten-up cities of Europe six months after victory is a mighty sobering experience for anyone. Europeans. Friend and foe alike, look you accusingly in the face and tell you how bitterly they are disappointed in you as an American. They cite the evolution of the word “liberation.” Before the Normandy landings it meant to be freed from the tyranny of the Nazis. Now it stands in the minds of the civilians for one thing, looting.
You try to explain to these Europeans that they expected too much. They answer that they had a right to, that after the last war America was the hope of the world. They talk about the Hoover relief, the work of the Quakers, the speeches of Woodrow Wilson. They don’t blame us for the fading of that hope. But they blame us now.
Never has American prestige in Europe been lower. People never tire of telling you of the ignorance and rowdy-ism of American troops, of out misunderstanding of European conditions. They say that the theft and sale of Army supplies by our troops is the basis of their black market. They blame us for the corruption and disorganization of UNRRA. They blame us for the fumbling timidity of our negotiations with the Soviet Union. They tell us that our mechanical de-nazification policy in Germany is producing results opposite to those we planned. “Have you no statesmen in America?” they ask.
The Skeptical French Press
Yet whenever we show a trace of positive leadership I found Europeans quite willing to follow our lead. The evening before Robert Jackson’s opening of the case for the prosecution in the Nurnberg trial, I talked to some correspondents from the French newspapers. They were polite but skeptical. They were willing enough to take part in a highly publicized act of vengeance against the enemy, but when you talked about the usefulness of writing a prohibition of aggressive war into the law of nations they laughed in your face. The night after Jackson’s nobly delivered and nobly worded speech I saw then all again. They were very much impressed. Their manner had even changed toward me personally as an American. Their sudden enthusiasm seemed to me typical of the almost neurotic craving for leadership of the European people struggling wearily for existence in the wintry ruins of their world.
The ruin this war has left in Europe can hardly be exaggerated. I can remember the years after the last war. Then, as soon as you got away from the military, all the little strands and pulleys that form the fabric of a society were still knitted together. Farmers took their crops to market. Money was a valid medium of exchange. Now the entire fabric of a million little routines has broken down. No on can think beyond food for today. Money is worthless. Cigarettes are used as a kind of lunatic travesty on a currency. If a man goes out to work he shops around to find the business that serves the best hot meal. The final pay-off is the situation reported from the Ruhr where the miners are fed at the pits so that they will not be able to take the food home to their families.
“Well, the Germans are to blame. Let them pay for it. It’s their fault,” you say. The trouble is that starving the Germans and throwing them out of their homes is only producing more areas of famine and collapse.
One section of the population of Europe looked to us for salvation and another looked to the Soviet Union. Wherever the people have endured either the American armies or the Russian armies both hopes have been bitterly disappointed. The British have won a slightly better reputation. The state of mind in Vienna is interesting because there the part of the population that was not actively Nazi was about equally divided. The wealthier classes looked to America, the workers to the Soviet Union.
The Russians came first. The Viennese tell you of the savagery of the Russian armies. They came like the ancient Mongol hordes out of the steppes, with the flimsiest supply. The people in the working-class districts had felt that when the Russians came that they at least would be spared. But not at all. In the working-class districts the tropes were allowed to rape and murder and loot at will. When victims complained, the Russians answered, “You are too well off to be workers. You are bourgeoisie.”
When Americans looted they took cameras and valuables but when the Russians looted they took everything. And they raped and killed. From the eastern frontiers a tide of refugees is seeping across Europe bringing a nightmare tale of helpless populations trampled underfoot. When the British and American came the Viennese felt that at last they were in the hands of civilized people. But instead of coming in with a bold plan of relief and reconstruction we came in full of evasions and apologies.
U.S. Administration a Poor Third
We know now the tragic results of the ineptitudes of the Peace of Versailles. The European system it set up was Utopia compared to the present tangle of snarling misery. The Russians at least are carrying out a logical plan for extending their system of control at whatever cost. The British show signs of recovering their good sense and their innate human decency. All we have brought to Europe so far is confusion backed up by a drumhead regime of military courts. We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease.
The taste of victory had gone sour in the mouth of every thoughtful American I met. Thoughtful men can’t help remembering that this is a period in history when every political crime and every frivolous mistake in statesmanship has been paid for by the death of innocent people. The Germans built the Stalags; the Nazis are behind barbed wire now, but who will be next? Whenever you sit eating a good meal in the midst of a starving city in a handsome house requisitioned from some German, you find yourself wondering how it would feel to have a conqueror drinking out of your glasses. When you hear the tales of the brutalizing of women from the eastern frontier you think with a shudder of of those you love and cherish at home.
That we are one world is unfortunately a brutal truth. Punishing the German people indiscriminately for the sins of their leader may be justice, but it is not helping to restore the rule of civilization. The terrible lesson of the events of this year of victory is that what is happening to the bulk of Europe today can happen to American tomorrow.
In America we are still rich, we are still free to move from place to place and to talk to our friends without fear of the secret police. The time has come, for our own future security, to give the best we have to the world instead of the worst. So far as Europe is concerned, American leadership up to now has been obsessed with a fear of our own virtues. Winston Churchill expressed this state of mind brilliantly in a speech to his own people which applies even more accurately to the people of the U.S. “You must be prepared,” he warned them, “for further efforts of mind and body and further sacrifices to great causes, if you are not to fall back into the rut if inertia, the confusion of aim and the craven fear of being great.”
Getting Déjà Vu yet? Here's more from this issue of LIFE...
The first winter of peace holds Europe in a deathly grip of cold, hunger and hopelessness. In the words of the London Sunday Observer: “Europe is threatened by a catastrophe this winter which has no precedent since the Black Death of 1348.”
These are still more than 25,000,000 homeless people milling about Europe. In Warsaw nearly 1,000,000 live in holes in the ground. Six million building were destroyed in Russia. Rumania has her worst drought of 50 years, and in Greece fuel supplies are terribly low because the Nazis, during their occupation, decimated the forests. In Italy the wheat harvest, which was a meager 3,450,000 tons in 1944, fell to an unendurable 1,304,000 tons in 1945. In France, food consumption per day averages 1,800 calories as compared with 3,000 calories in the U.S.
Germany is sinking even below the level of the countries she victimized. The German people are still better clothed than most of Europe because during the war they took the best of Europe’s clothing. But their food supply is below subsistence level. In the American zone they beg for the privilege of scraping U.S. army garbage cans. Infant mortality is already so high that a Berlin Quaker, quoted in the British press, predicted. “No child born in Germany in 1945 will survive. Only half the children aged less than 3 years will survive.”
On Germany, which plunged the Continent into its misery, falls the blame for its own plight and the plight of all Europe. But if this winter proves worse even than the war years, blame will fall on the victor nations. Some Europeans blame Russia for callousness to misery in eastern Europe. But some also blame America because they expected so much more from her. On the following pages the distinguished novelist John Dos Passos, who has been abroad as LIFE correspondent, reports on Europe’s suffering and what it means for America.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Is certainly the province of Republicans! Half a Trill( soon enough, anyway) on a failed occupation and laws abridging our freedoms are highlights of the current efforts. I really don't believe the Dems could do any better at all!
Cheers to all the hard work,
Thomas Payne
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015439.php
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You're on fire tonight!
Occupation? Ha! Failed? Double ha! Laws abriding our freedoms? Adorable! Sarcastic tag line closer? Perfection!
Ooh, you're so precious I could just eat you up!
The Minstrel fell! But the foeman's chain
Could not bring that proud soul under
The harp he lov'd ne'er spoke again,
For he tore its chords asunder.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
he was wrong.
He resigned.
I hope he is punished, if he is found to have committed a crime.
I think where there was clear evidence of Foley's actions, sitting on it was wrong-whether it was to hide his actions, or wait until an opertune time to make political hay just before an election.
that they definitionally do, but I don't know the law wherever this alleged conduct might have occurred. Many states have made laws on coercive authority with regard to cops, COs, teachers, social workers, etc. I doubt there is such a law with Congressmen, so the authority would have to be demonstrated under civil rules in a sexual harrassment claim, not a criminal matter.
In Vino Veritas
I understand that the boy involved with the emails parents declined to pursue it any further, and may not have given permission for any further interviews.
But I wonder why the Page Board chair didn't seek to quietly interview the other Pages to see if anything similar was going on with them.
It was my understanding that ABC didn't come into posession of the IMs until just after the story broke. At least that's what I've read. Do you have a cite?
-exits