Posted on 10/03/2006 6:43:59 AM PDT by no dems
True. But why sink to their level? They've more than reaped the whirlwind for their antics. Our party is just too stupid to spend its political capital during eight years of control in the legislative and executive branch.
Closing ranks over an issue like this would shatter the integrity of conservatism.
We're not trying to close ranks, we are trying to point out that Hastert (and the FBI and the parents) had nothing to go on in the emails. Now the media is conflating emails and IM's and saying monday morning quarterback Hastert should have known and fired Foley. That is ridiculous.
No connection. wow, since 2002 I feel old.
seriously.
Serch for C.R.E.W. or CREW here on FR. DNC dirty tricks group.
Rush also mentioned this yesterday. The instant messages were held for three years.
Now it appears the ABC reporter held the instant messages from early august in order to time them.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
Then why wasn't NANCY PELOSI the one out there confronting Mark Foley, as she (or her staff, at any rate) had the information, and did not pass it along to the revelant parties.
That action would have had nothing to do with the politics of the matter. It was conscience and good manners that should have dictated the actions. But in this case Nancy Pelosi held back the information, so it could be played for partisan advantage at a time when the impact would be most sharply felt.
Had this information been shared in a timely manner with Dennis Hastert, Mark Foley would have been asked to leave his office long ago, and nothing would have been said. But parents of one of the pages involved wanted to protect the page's privacy, and that sure was a lasting safeguard. So no more was done. The Republican leadership of the House thought the problem was resolved.
we are trying to point out that Hastert (and the FBI and the parents) had nothing to go on in the emails. Now the media is conflating emails and IM's and saying monday morning quarterback Hastert should have known and fired Foley. That is ridiculous.
I do think there is confusion between the emails and the IMs, but I also think there's confusion over what should have occured regarding the emails.
I am not saying that Hastert should have fired Foley. I am saying that Hastert should have looked into or had someone look into the situation. That means someone should have asked other pages and former pages whether they had received inappropriate communications. They didn't have to specify Foley, that could have asked it as a general question about anyone associated with their time as a page. From some of what's now coming out, it's a good bet that Hastert would have gotten an earful.
This has been asked by several people on this thread, but I'll repeat it: Please give us the proof that Pelosi had this information.
If true, it's dynamite. But without proof, it just looks silly to keep repeating.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com
numerous references to CREW here on FR.
NOTE: if a MSM or dinosaur media (ie FNC) call EVERYTHING an instant message then they are trying to fan the non-scandal.
Nobody is addressing the issue of homosexuals consistently being sexual predators upon children.
Not a good bet at all. The IM's are causing you to monday morning quarterback and imagine there was more to be dug up. But they are old and dubiously sourced (to say the least). Foley didn't deny them, but what good would that do anyway? Also the pages themselves have not said bad things about Foley, on the contrary, they have said he was ok.
You mean after seeing the e-mails Hastert didn't think of having a private detective vet it out? Haster should have assumed that if he flirted with one, he flirted with others, and Lord knows what he was stupid enough to commit to immortality in e-mail? Jeez, these politicians can crawl up the keister with a microscope on their electoral opponents, but the clearly suggestive e-mails didn't send up a giant red flag that Foley was a land mine just waiting to be stepped on? The blackmail potential, on the e-mails alone, should have been enough incentive for Hastert to find out the full story. He took them at face value instead of realizing that where there's smoke, there's fire.
The worst thing your army can do in battle is give ammunition to the enemy. This isn't just ammunition, this is a Howitzer cannon. Whether or not Hastert et al. had direction knowledge of the IM's, the e-mails alone should have spurred some kind of internal response, and from all appearances, it didn't.
Thanks. I did not mean to impugn your integrity, but I wrote a letter to the editor of our local newspaper based on your statement and was worried that I might have been duped.
That's completely ridiculous. Have you read the emails? He asked the kid for his picture, that's as "bad" as they got.
If this was a Dem, we'd all be screaming: "Castrate the pervert"; and you know it!!!!
Guess what?!! No matter how much you yelled, "Castrate the pervert", it would fall on deaf ears! Democrats are not held accountable for their actions; for example, Jim McDermott, Ted Kennedy, Barney Franks, Gerry Studds, and Leaky Leahy to name a few who should have been punished but weren't. Does this excuse Mark Foley? Heck no, but he has resigned and the matter is being investigated....I prefer to wait until I know the facts before I start destroying careers!
This is a trap being set by the dems. Dont fall for it. Someone sat on these IMs until October. I want to know who was sitting on them. Was it the page? Or someone the page talked to. At any rate the moment these IMs happened, action should have been taken. I have zero tolerance for anyone that commits or intends to commit crimes against minors.
When the overly freindly e-mails came to light Foley was quietly pulled aside and told to knock it off. Apparently he did not, and I'm glad he is out of there.
If a 50 year old man asked your teenage son for his picture, would it alarm you?
The reason I am waiting and giving Hastert the benefit of the doubt is because I remember when the first part of the story broke - that just included the e-mails. It was reported that Congressman Foley explained the e-mails by saying the page had contacted his office for a reference (for a job). They had renewed contact (this was AFTER the page had completed his Washington, D.C. stint) and he was just being friendly. SO we don't know what he told the Republican leadership when they confronted him about the e-mails. Obviously - now that we have the IM's - it makes the e-mails look more suspicious.... but hindsight is always that way. I do believe SOMEONE knew this was much more serious - at this point I do not necessarily believe that person was Hastert OR anyone with a R after their name....
we will see.
What would be the difference/ They have been "governing like a minority party"
anyway. Maybe from the ashes of these sorry gop leaders in the house and the senate, a new generation of CONSERVATIVE leaders will rise. And I'm not talking about John Boehoir. He must go as well.
I would have been very happy had such questions come up with a "no," and it certainly would have insulated the leadership from the circus that's going on now. It would have been straightforward: we asked, we couldn't find any corrorobation, and that's that.
Also the pages themselves have not said bad things about Foley, on the contrary, they have said he was ok.
Check out one example - and I think there are others out there - in the LA Times.
Do we now have to worry that our private IMs are NOT private?
not if you are having benign conversations...
No. You are are monday morning quarterbacking knowing that Foley was a perv, knowing that he sent those obscene IMs.
Well that's new to me. I guess I should not be surprised that some pages are now remembering things that we didn't hear anything about a few weeks ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.