Posted on 09/29/2006 12:01:58 PM PDT by Lunatic Fringe
Just breaking on CNN
Yep. The boy's family didn't want to pursue the matter so it was dropped.
It is amazing how so many can't do their own research. I pulled up the article in about ten seconds.
It is understandable that the family would not want all the publicity, especially if it was all talk.
But to just overlook the behavior? I just don't get it.
bttt
I can't believe that newspaper didn't go with it.
According to Brian Ross tonight on Nightline, when they put the story up yesterday, they were covered up with emails from other pages/people.
Much better to hold it until it is almost impossible for the GOP to field a replacement candidate.
I was just thinking that.
And why do the parents think it's okay now?
I dread these next few weeks.
I feel like we're going to see the "recuiting scene" from Blazing Saddles: "Rape, murder, rape, robbery, rape." "I like rape."
Yes, some sure do. And others also do it unconsciously. In other words, they engage in 'grooming' type behavior but it's not with any apparent intent to take the next step. They wouldn't even necessarily think of it as grooming.
You probably don't need me to tell you that there are all kinds of variations. Heck, one of my more interesting case studies got his biggest kicks from merely securing a person's name, phone number, and address. Until he managed to get that his stalking could be fairly intense, but once he was confident he had the correct information he pretty much filed them away and all but lost interest and moved on to the next target. In his mind, they were now his 'possession' in a sense and that was sufficient.
Efforts to reach the boy were unsuccessful, but he told the St. Petersburg Times last November, "I thought it was very inappropriate. After the one about the picture, I decided to stop e-mailing him back." The Times didn't publish the comments until Friday.
The fat unused "black book" gone wild. Whatever.
Something is just not ringing true about the "timeline," is it?
Why would the St. Petersburg Times, on record for hating Bush, hold this story?
Well, there was more that made the case study so interesting, but I won't get into all that.
I am to the point of forgetting about politics all together.
Then who are the im's from ?
Reading around the web, alot of folks knew about these allegations as soon as Rodney Alexander informed leadership. Liberal blogger Josh Marshall has Boehner apparently lying too.
Early last night, Boehner told Roll Call "that is not true" that he informed Speaker Hastert 10 months ago about the allegations. Late tonight, he told the Washington Post that he had told Hastert of some "contact" between Foley and the page 10 months ago, and that Hastert told him "we're taking care of it". Once Boehner apparently knew that the media knew he told Hastert, he came clean. That is not how this should be handled.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up. Hastert and Boehner need to come clean on how much they knew, and when they knew it. It disgusts me as an American that IT WAS KNOWN for a year and nobody did a damned thing about it.
Perhaps it is time for the constitutional amendment for term limits to be brought up again. This is NOT a Republican problem. This is an entranced encumbant problem.
bttt
Someone mentioned earlier that the Palm Beach Post ran the e-mail story a year ago. There wasn't a link, just that statement.
I'll look for it.
No, it sure isn't.
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.