Differences in how both sides handle sex scandals....Dem's: give standing ovations, don't resign, defend the person, say it is their personal life. Right: Resign and see if anyone else is responsible. If anyone really saw explicit emails, they need to go too.
You don't have ANY conservatives making excuses for Foley or anyone. When we bring up the past, it is to show that the Democrats have no credibility to talk about this issue AT ALL. So far, the Right has done a fine job. Can any liberal explain why this is a Republican problem? You don't know which emails people saw, do you? For all we know (and it seems to be all we know so far) is that the liberal bloggers and the DCCC were the only ones who knew anything about this....so should they be fired?
Once again, liberals get hyper and run around and scream without any facts. Once again, it is all political. The Right will judge anyone who covered this up...but we are smart enough, can think with our brains and not our emotions, to wait and see what actually happened.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Breaking down the Foley Issue...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
22 comments:
Game,
This is true except for Jim and Dedanna. Jim can't help his hyper partisanship, but Dedanna has to take off the Clinton issue Rose (law firm) colored glasses.
I'm not sure what dedanna thinks about this...she has seemed to be more logical lately...
I logical answer, even from a liberal, would be to say that it looks like republicans might have covered stuff up...and if they did, they should be gone...
But instead they say there was definately cover-up with no facts...and scream and yell to get as much political gain as possible
Actually, logically speaking, I'm totally sick of this issue.
'nuff said.
Hello, I'm partisan and you're not?
How can you continue to say there are no facts when there are facts all over the place. The only ones without facts are those of you who attempt to make this a Democratic party issue for supposedly hiding this and springing it in October. And that Democrats are gay bashing.
As we all know that's all bullshit.
You guys got nothing.
show me what you have...
and dedanna, you are right..this should not even be a story...blame people like Jim who are doing whatever it takes to get power...I'm sure Jim was not looking for Clinton to resign when he did worse
Clenis alert, Clenis alert. Game is showing his OCD again. Clinton has nothing to do with this.
And how in the WORLD can you say what he did was worse? In what possible way was what he did worse?
I don't have to have anything. It's all right there for America to behold.
Clinton actually did something, Foley talked about doing things...
Jim has yet to say how this story has anything to do with the entire Republican party...he simply "says" that there is a cover up...but there is no proof...
There is LOTS of proof showing how fake liberals like Jim are...but he continues to ignore it since he believes the liberals will get their power back
Hey Game, you're the one who posted this thing, not Jim or Ron.
Y'can't post a story on a blog and not expect people to post about it. If you think it's a bullshit story, then ignore it and don't post anything on it.
I'm not posting any more on it because I don't think it should have been posted to begin with, as you already have way too many threads on it, and I'm sick of it like I said.
Oh, and btw Jim, I don't think there's a cover-up. Everyone these days does things blatantly, whether illegal or not. The b.s. is way too easy to see. It's just the ones who don't want to see it that don't (or pretend not to).
If Republic leadership knew about Foley for at least 2 years and did nothing about it, how can it NOT be a coverup? It's the Republics who are pointing their fingers at each other. They are the ones that have admitted that they have known about Foley for years and claiming that the "other guy" was taking care of it.
It's slimeballs like Reynolds who holds a "press conference" renting out a daycare center and stifles the press's questions by insisting that young kids remain present during the question period. Is that chicken s**t or what?
You may notice that I have done a MINIMUM of accusing anybody of anything. I'm letting events and words speak for themselves.
Mostly what I'm doing is calling you on your bullshit when you try to claim that the Dems are gay bashing and asking you to prove that the Dems orchestrated this whole thing.
I think the main thing is that Foley was exposed and was dismissed. The length of time it took for him to be exposed is relatively short. There are accusations of people supposedly imforming Congressional leadership about Foley and his proclivities, but nothing substantiated and some downright refuted. Then there were the emails with nothing of note, but he was ordered to desist and apparently did as far as THAT kid went. Finally there was the IM's which may or may not have been to an 18yr old and he was made to resign. Basically, the story's done. Over. If there are any loose ends, it has to be what the libs who brought this shit to light knew and how long they knew it before splashing it all over the news. You might not like the way the GOP dealt with it 'till then, but they were dealing with it. Everything looks so nasty in hindsight, but chronologically and in context, much ado about very little.
Marshall said,
If there are any loose ends, it has to be what the libs who brought this shit to light knew and how long they knew it before splashing it all over the news.
What has that got to do with ANYTHING?
You can't blame this on the "libs". It's got nothing to do with them.
But nice try.
Oh, I get it. Only the right can be questioned on the extent of prior knowledge, but not the left. This means that the moment the left learned of this was just now. Uh huh. I buy that.
Marshall said,
If there are any loose ends, it has to be what the libs who brought this shit to light knew and how long they knew it before splashing it all over the news.
Excuse you? It was Hastert who knew how long beforehand, and he's con or lib? How many others who knew beforehand who were not lib?
BTW: You can say that Foley wasn't doing anything sexually explicit, but here is one of his i.m.s, and it looks & sounds pretty gross to me (I found it from here.
Quit with the denial routine, folks. It no longer works. I'm just glad the dewd's outta there. I'm wondering however, how many are right behind him.
And, just to set the record straight, Marshall:
Allegations of a cover up by House Republicans:
Following the resignation, it became apparent that many GOP leaders in Congress had been aware of the email correspondence between Foley and the young page as early as the fall of 2005.
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.):
Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.) was the sponsor of the then-sixteen year old page whose emails from Foley sparked the controversy. The accounts of his knowledge of the page's interactions with Foley evolved in the early days of the scandal:
On September 30, 2006 (the day after Foley's resignation), the Washington Post reported that Alexander said that he learned of the online exchanges from a reporter "some months ago" and reported them to Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), the chair of the National Republican Campaign Committee. He also stated that he took no further action because "his parents said they didn't want me to do anything."
On October 1, 2006, the New York Times reported that, "according to lawmakers and the speaker's office," the page forwarded the email in which Foley asked for his picture to one of Alexander's staffers, calling it "sick" and saying that it "freaked me out." (Ref. the link I posted in my previous post)
On October 3, 2006, the Washington Post cited "House accounts" that stated Alexander was approached by the page's parents in late 2005, who requested that Foley stop contacting their son and that the incident be kept quiet.
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.):
Page Committee Chairman John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said that in late 2005, information was passed along to him by the clerk’s office regarding the email exchange. Though the page had reportedly called the emails "sick," Foley was apparently able to convince Shimkus that the emails were innocent. Shimkus advised Foley to immediately stop contacting the boy, and Foley agreed. Shimkus never informed Rep. Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), the lone Democrat on the Page Committee, or any other House Democrat, about the situation.
Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio):
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said on September 29, 2006 that he had first learned of the inappropriate contact between Foley and the page in the spring of 2006. He said he then contacted Hastert, who appeared to already know about the matter. Boehner then contacted the Post hours later to partially retract his statement and say that he could not remember whether or not he had spoken with Hastert.
Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.):
In the spring of 2006, Alexander notified Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee regarding the matter.
Reynolds released a statement on September 30, 2006 stating that he had then informed Hastert of the issue:
"Rodney Alexander brought to my attention the existence of e-mails between Mark Foley and a former page of Mr. Alexander's. Despite the fact that I had not seen the e-mails in question, and Mr. Alexander told me that the parents didn't want the matter pursued, I told the Speaker of the conversation Mr. Alexander had with me. Mr. Alexander has also said he took the matter to the Clerk of the House. An investigation was then conducted by the Clerk and John Shimkus on behalf of the House Page Board."
Kirk Fordham:
Kirk Fordham was Foley's chief of staff from 1995 until January 2004. He then went to work on the 2004 Senate campaign of Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) and then became chief of staff for New York Republican Representative and National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Reynolds. He resigned from Reynolds' staff on October 3, 2006.
Fordham, who had remained close friends with Foley and his sister after he left Foley's staff, was intimately involved in the early Republican efforts to manage the media coverage of the scandal. When ABC News reporter Brian Ross first contacted Foley with the instant messages on September 29, Fordham called him back and offered an exclusive on Foley's resignation in exchange for the supression of the messages, which Ross refused to do. When Fordham resigned from Reynolds' staff on October 4th, he said that he was acting as Foley's friend and not in any official capacity, stating, "I will not allow the Democrats to make me a political issue in my boss's race, and I will fully cooperate with the ongoing investigation."
However, that same day Fordham stated that, while Foley's chief of staff, he had repeatedly asked Hastert's staff to put a stop to Foley's inappropriate relations with House pages:
"The fact is, even prior to the existence of the Foley e-mail exchanges, I had more than one conversation with senior staff at the highest levels of the House of Representatives, asking them to intervene when I was informed of Mr. Foley's inappropriate behavior."
Fordham was referring to staff for Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has been speaker since 1999. He also stated that he will be disclosing to the FBI and the House ethics committee "any and all meetings and phone calls" he had with House leadership aides about Foley.
Republican leadership staff then pushed back. Hastert's chief of staff, Scott Palmer, equivocally denied Fordham's account, stating, "What Kirk Fordham said did not happen."
Leadership staff also intimated that in 2005 he had persuaded the leadership to keep the Foley issue secret from the Page Board and inform only board chairman Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.).
Fordham, who had said, "at no point ever did I ask anyone to block any inquiries," categorically denied the allegations:
"Rather than trying to shift the blame on me, those who are employed by these House leaders should acknowledge what they know about their action or inaction in response to the information they knew about Mr. Foley prior to 2005."
Responses from Rep. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.):
The statements by Reynolds, Alexander and Boehner contradicted Hastert's earlier claim that he only learned about the issue of Foley and the page the week before. After being confronted with Reynold's statement, Hastert reversed his position and stated that he may have been informed of the issue but did not specifically recall the conversation. He also stated that while he may have known about the emails, he had no knowledge until recently about the more explicit instant messenger conversations. His office also confirmed that Hastert's top aides, at least, had known since 2005 that Foley had been ordered to treat pages respectively and to cut off contact with the one he had been emailing. The Washington Post reported that "Republican insiders" said that Reynolds issued the statement out of anger that Hastert was apparently willing to let him take the blame for the lack of action by the House Republican leadership. The Post reported that a Republican leadership aide told them, "This is what happens when one member tries to throw another member under a bus."
Hastert also denied that his staff ever informed him of the concerns raised by Rep. Rodney Alexander.
Democratic response:
Democrats sharply criticized GOP leaders for failing to properly address the matter sooner and involve them in the process. Doing so, Democrats argued, may have led to an inquiry which would have uncovered the more sexually-explicit instant messages which were supposedly unknown at the time to the House leadership. This negligence, Democrats argued, was augmented by the fact that Foley was permitted to remain as co-chair of the Congressional Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Democrats were joined in their criticism by some Republicans. Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.) stated that any member of the GOP leadership who knew of the emails and took no action should resign. (And I agree. D.)
On October 4, 2006, Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement calling for Hastert and the rest of the Republican leadership to be "immediately questioned under oath... The children, their parents, the public, and our colleagues deserve answers and those who covered up Mark Foley's behavior must be held accountable." (And I agree -- so much for your put-down on Pelosi, jason -- D.)
You can break down the Foley issue all you want, but it smells strongly like Watergate all over again to me, and much, much worse.
Hitler was into homosexual activities as well, from a documentary I saw this weekend.
And people wonder why GWB & his cronies are compared to Hitler, et. al.
Next up: The rest of congress is found to be mafia drug-runners, using 80& 10-yr-olds as their sales agents. *sarcastic & bitter*
I liked the days when they could cover this kind of shit up and keep it covered up a lot better than now -- at least then we had an image to look up to. Now we got nothing.
Oh, and speaking of cover-up on this issue, it seems the cover-up will go on:
Post-resignation investigations into Foley
[edit]House page board investigation
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) responded to Foley's resignation by asking the chairman of the House's page board, Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), to investigate the page system. He stated, "We want to make sure that all our pages are safe and the page system is safe." With regards to Foley's actions, he continued, "None of us are very happy about it."
That's real good. Ask someone who's already involved in the cover-up to investigate it. hhmmm... I guess that's a good way to keep things covered up. :-p~~~~~~
Well, Dedanna, you've taken a lot of space to say that both sides deny what the other side has said. Nothing speaks of any "cover-up" as the term is now understood, other than the request by the parents to back off the story, most certainly for the sake of their kid. In the meantime, however, for the capital offense of writing a few emails, Foley was told to desist, and did so as far as that kid was concerned....
But we've been through all this before ad nauseum. It seems now that you're upset that the House leaders didn't take this to the press and broadcast it across the country and that makes it a cover-up. BTW, if it was a cover-up, why was it basically common knowledge that Foley was gay and writing to these kids?
Shame on you for inferring the very lame comparison of Bush to Hitler. It's very moonbat-ish.
The comparison to Watergate isn't bad, however. Both of these are very penny ante compared to the Studds affair, the Clinton daliances, and other episodes.
If there wasn't a cover-up, then why was nothing done at the time before Foley started writing his gross crap to kids?
If there wasn't a cover-up, then why is Hastert in dutch now?
If there wasn't a cover-up, then why are every one that I listed above implicated in a cover-up?
Maybe there is worse to you than being a pedophile, but there isn't to me. 'nuff said.
Once again you use infamatory language where it is most inappropriate. In some states, 16 yr olds can marry. A teen is not what is meant when the term pedophile is usually mentioned. There's enough wrong with the Foley situation that making shit up isn't required. Your credibility suffers if you can't stick to facts in the heat of your passion.
Being implicated isn't the same as being convicted from proof and evidence. As has been stated about a billion times, Foley had been dealt with regarding the emails. The emails alone were not enough to do more to him than was done. It was later that IM's and other evidence came to light. You might think it's cool to convict on hearsay, but no court will do so.
I don't call i.m.s & emails hearsay. I call them proof in black & white (or whatever color they were transmitted in).
Post a Comment