Other than my mention of Wild Bill's investigative work, I have not mentioned the Foley fiasco. I wanted to hear more about this before I formed an opinion. Oh, I already had the opinion that Foley was a cretin who should never, ever, be allowed to serve in public office again. I think most people agree on this and if it is found he did something illegal he should face, shall we say, stiff penalties. What I have been looking at is the reaction by members of both parties. We have gotten the expected "Who knew what and when" statements that always abound when a member of Congress gets caught with his pants down.
The Republicans are running around finger pointing and can not seem to muster the strength to actually lead. There are accusations about who knew what and how it was withheld. The Washington Times and members of the Party are calling for the resignation of Dennis Hastert. The Democrats, blind to their own misdeeds, are asking us; if the Republicans can not protect our children, how can they possibly protect the nation? I will not rehash the past sexual misdeeds of the Democrats. They are well known and the left would only come unhinged and make all kinds of assertions about justifying the actions of Foley. None of it will be true, of course, but rather than admit there is a cultural problem across party lines they will dismiss the acts of the many Democrats who have been caught in various sexual situations. Hell, they dismissed the murder committed by Ted Kennedy while he was out trying to get a bit of loving from a woman who was not his wife. If they willingly look past a crime like this, it becomes clear why they can easily dismiss the actions of others in their party.
This is all moot because for the most part, what Foley did was allegedly with an underage young man. Contrary to what has been reported, he is not and was not a child, though he was three weeks shy of his eighteenth birthday. The acts took place over several years and they allegedly involved other pages. As far as we know, the only thing the leadership was aware of are some innocuous emails that were overly friendly but not overtly sexual in nature. This could change, but this is what we now right now. After an investigation Foley was counseled not to have any contact with the person who complained and to treat all pages professionally.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Keep Reading
I suggest you keep reading. And try reading a few things that aren't Republican propaganda. If you really believe that any Democrat would have held this story during the 2004 presidential campaign, you aren't thinking clearly. It just doesn't make sense, but I'll give it an "E" for effort.
Not ONE person has provided proof (beyond posts like yours) that ANY Democrat was involved. However, every person known/proven to have been involved so far, has been a Republican. Like I said, keep reading. There's more out there than RW media!
2 - Jet in Columbus
"I wanted to hear more about this before I formed an opinion."
Who exactly are you trying to fool with that Bushit?
Certainly not us I hope?
3 - JustOneMan
Dog...the truth will come out...the Dems will be connected to the story...once the CREW story breaks this will hit the dems right in their little balls....
In addition I am amazed that the same party that they are "open minded" concerning sexual orientation are bashing this guy because he is doing what Gay men do.....look for some action and recruit new "younger" members....so whats the big deal...The Republicans didnt out a guy that wanted to keep his sexual life private...
To be a bonafide "queer" must none march in the Gay Pride parade in leather or in drag...or proclaim that they are a "gay american"...
The true color of the Dumbocrats!
4 - Big Dog
As stated in the post, there will a few morons who attack the writer. Jet, I don't care what you believe. I waited for a week so I would not foolishly rush to judgement like so many others. Yes, Foley is scum but there is more to this and one bad guy does not reflect the whole party. Each day there are new items coming out and they contradict what was out the day before. Besides, waiting a week allowed me to hear, for a whole week, how much the Democratic Party stands for values. Now, who exactly are you all trying to fool with that bullcrap?
"Not one person has provided proof that any Democrat was involved." I believe that I indicated that they should look at how long it was known and 2004 was not part of what I wrote. I said the IMs took place in 2003, not that they were released then. News reports indicate that the group that Soros is involved in (CREW) had the IMs in April of this year and held them. The FBI is investigating that.
You know as well as I do that everyone know everone else's business in Congress.
5 - Dave Nalle
Not ONE person has provided proof (beyond posts like yours) that ANY Democrat was involved.
It has certainly been proven that ABC News sat on the story for months so that it would be positioned to do the most damage for the elections.
Dave
6 - Nancy
And this is something the Republicans haven't done themselves in the past? They can dish it out but they can't take their own medicine? What bullshit. The Dems have NOTHING to do with this whole charade, and the GOP knows it. Even Hastert has backed down from his ridiculous far-fetched claims of a Dem conspiracy. No - this fiasco is entirely GOP made, by GOP arrogance, secrecy, & lust for power, and therein lies the entertainment value of it for all non-Republicans: they're hoist with their own petards, all by themselves, and have only themselves to thank this time. But by all means, DO keep on blathering about Democrat involvement; it kills what little credibility you still have & makes you sound increasingly desperate & unbalanced. It also doesn't help your cause that JOM thinks your theory is just peachy; kind of like having Kim on your side, or Chavez, y'know? With allies like that, you don't need enemies.
7 - JustOneMan
Now Nancy...lets stop the Queer bashing!
8 - zingzing
jom: "I am amazed that the same party that they are "open minded" concerning sexual orientation are bashing this guy because he is doing what Gay men do.....look for some action and recruit new "younger" members...."
wait, wait.... are you saying that gay men are pedophiles? or whatever you call it...
the fact that this guy is gay has little to do with this case. legally, all that matters is that the guy was contacting underage (whether that mean under 18 for sex or under 21 for alcohol) kids in ways that were vastly inappropriate.
it's only in the media and in politics that it matters that the guy was gay.
and your statement ("...doing what Gay men do...") shows your sentiment quite well.
9 - Jet in Columbus
As if there was any doubt Zing? Please don't confuse him with facts!
10 - BriMan
What is rich about this whole party of values argument is that anyone would consider that any political party has a monopoly on values. People that vote based on values need to get some of their own. For instance, stop being so lazy and do your duty as an informed citizen. The hypocrits in the R - party are just that. They are addicted to power - the massive amounts of money they are willing to spend to perpetuate it proves me out. The level of corruption that they stoop to to get their money proves me out.
Dems arent saints either but not a single one took money from the likes of Abramoff - if you want to keep perpetuating a lie then all I can say is that you have been bamboozled so long you refuse to see your own failed ability to grasp at truth. Your state of denial makes you look like a fool and a charlatan with a keyboard. Keep thinking the way you are and the problems in this country will only get worse.
The Repubs have painted themselves in a corner. When they are out of power (and they will be - maybe soon) and they disagree with how the Dems are running the war the R's started, they might just be considered unpatriotic and unAmerican by their own warped logic. Stay the course indeed!
11 - Big Dog
BriMan,
Before you come around spouting off you need to get out of the kool aid line for a while. You stated not a single one took money from the likes of Abramhoff. Read on and learn.
Dirt runs across party lines and when we allow them to live in Congress instead of limiting terms this is what we get.
Dems who took Abramhoff money
12 - Arch Conservative
You make some very valid points about the double standards applied to Dems and Reps Big Dog.
I mean Foley sends sexual emails to an underage page so he has to resign but it's ok for Bill Clinton to pardon Mel Reynolds a member of congress who was convited of having sex with minors.
Trentt Lott says something about Strom Thrumond and the left cries racist yet joe Biden says "you can't walk into a 711 without bumping into an indian and the left says nothing.
Most recently left wing moonbats at Columbia University interuppted a speaking invition at which the minutemen were invited to speak by callling them racist and rushing the stage and gettign violent. The irony was that when a black man was speaking on behalf of the minutemen, the moonbat protestors did not feel they were being racist by hurling racial epithets at him.
Just goes to show you whata bunch of hypocrites the American left is.
13 - Arch Conservative
Oh and yes there were Dems who took Abromoff money.
Hate to break it to you Briman.
14 - BriMan
Puhleeeez - your source is the RNC???
The pot trying to say the kettle is black.
I like the way they said "linked". I guess that means the dollar in my pocket is "linked" to Abramoff too since it was printed in the same place his money was.
You are going to have to do better than that. Try an objective source if you even know of one...
15 - zingzing
archie, show a link for this minutemen-columbia showdown. i've been looking for anything about this, and can't find a thing.
16 - Jet in Columbus
Arch you don't have a hell of a lot of room babbling about double standards...
17 - Arch Conservative
zing all you have do do is go to google news and type in columbia
either you're an idiot or you havn't been looking long
18 - Arch Conservative
Oh and here's a link to the washington post for you Briman
[Arch, if you're posting links, please follow BC protocol and make them active. This is a reminder of how. Thanks. Comments Editor]
19 - zingzing
well, i certainly didn't look for bill oreilly or front page. ick. i'm sure there is another side to the story.
20 - JustOneMan
Zing...
"are you saying that gay men are pedophiles? or whatever you call it..."
Well why do the majority of gays claim to have been molested by older gay men?
21 - JustOneMan
Briman...your racists...
"The pot trying to say the kettle is black."
black is no longer acceptable its African American!
Gee how insensitive!
22 - zingzing
do they? have they? never heard such a thing. please expand upon this.
HEY, GAYS!!! calling all gays! were you molested by an older gay man?
23 - JustOneMan
"never heard such a thing"
Liar, liar pants on fire!!!!
PS - Is that calling or "IMing all Gays"
24 - Clavos
For zing and any other doubting thomas:
Here's a link to Columbia University's official Public Relations Office website in which the administration deplores the behavior of their students during the Minutemen presentation.
It says, in part:
This much is a matter of core principle at Columbia: The freedom to speak, to pursue ideas, and to hear and evaluate viewpoints totally objectionable to one's own is an essential value of this university and, indeed, of our civil society. We defend the right to peaceful protest and expression of opposing views. But it is never acceptable for anyone to physically take to a stage and interrupt a speaker.
25 - zingzing
no, i've never heard that at all.