Posted on 10/01/2006 8:58:50 AM PDT by the Real fifi
Dynamite Phil -
Your graphic has that 50's movie poster look to it -
This thread has hit about 2600 views already -
These are the elected leaders of men and women elected to office by their constituents. They couldn't go further because the boy's parents said they wanted his privacy protected and would not allow further investigation. Thye just wanted the leaders to do what they could to persuade Foley to break off communications with their son. They did that. He promised he would have no further contact with him or any other interns or pages .
If our congressional leaders can't be competent administrators, or delegate to someone who is, it's a lot sorrier situation than I thought.
It's absolutely untrue that they "couldn't" go further to investigate. If you read my original post, I made it clear that they could respect the request of the parents, but still check to see if there were problems with other pages or past pages. I've never heard of a competent investigation that consists of asking the accused, "did you something wrong?" and accepting "no" with no further questions.
This really troubles me. If Freepers don't understand this LARGE fact, how can we expect people who get their news from MSM to get it? Someone of authority needs to get on all 3 networks tomorrow a.m. and repeat the truth over and over, just like Democrats do when they want to make a point...like a broken record.
Two great expressions there!
Pretty good at only 121 posts when you posted!!
Good new one at the bottom there!
"C.R.E.W. is one of four “public interest” organizations which the RNC has long identifed as major recipients of George Soros richly-funded Open Society Institute. It is backing the risible Wilson/Plame civil suit against Cheney and others."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Great article and yes, it is all extremely fishy. The final paragraph indicates how enraged the writer (Clarice Feldman) is and she has outlined her arguments well.
But the above quote tells me all I need to know....Soros.
And where did you get the idea that that was the investigation? They asked if he sent those emails (and those remember were not the salaciousones). He admitted he had. He explained they were innocent and they certianly lend themselves to that interpretation. He was told that the boy didn't want the communication continued and he promised not to.
It was not possible to talk to the biy or to others about the boy's interactions with FOley because the parents refused.
It was not possible to talk to the biy or to others about the boy's interactions with FOley because the parents refused.
You seem determined to ignore a point I've made repeatedly - that someone should have checked with OTHER pages, and pages from past years.
Please READ the entire article.....before jumping to conclusions.
The House leadership only saw the 'overly friendly' emails....it was investigated & Foley was told to stop all contact wiht the pages.
I've read the article. I'm not jumping to anything.
How thorough could the "investigation" have been if it failed to reveal that pages were regularly told to watch out for Foley?
Only ABC said that, quoting a former page Loratich. Today in the NYT he's quoted as denying there was ever such a warning.
Only ABC said that, quoting a former page Loratich. Today in the NYT he's quoted as denying there was ever such a warning.
That would help somewhat. Can you post a link?
Still, we have this, from the article you referenced:
Matthew Loraditch, who worked as a page with Ms. Gallo and Mr. McDonald in 2001 and 2002, said a supervisor had once casually mentioned that Mr. Foley “was odd” and that he later saw sexually explicit text messages that Mr. Foley had sent to two former pages after they left the program.
and this:
But despite Mr. Foley’s warm demeanor, Mr. McDonald and another former page said they later became aware that the lawmaker might have a darker side. Mr. McDonald said he learned that Mr. Foley had sexually explicit Internet conversations with several pages who had left the program. “I was disgusted, but I was not surprised when these revelations started circulating,” he said.
So at least three former pages knew about this before it was publicly revealed (“I was not surprised when these revelations started circulating”).
So once again, I have to ask: How thorough could the "investigation" have been?
Are you suggesting that Hastert should have interviewed every former page? How far back? And on what evidence? And in light of the parents' demand that this go no further than an admonition to Foley to cease correspondence?
In any event I remind you that this charge that Hastert did not go far enough comes from a party that supports gay scout masters.
I am suggesting that the evidence clearly shows that Foley's tastes were well known, or at the very least well--suspected. Did they interview *any* former pages in this investigation? Wouldn't that have been a good place to start?
I don't care about the Dims. Let them take care of their own sickos (or not, as we would expect) - I'm worried about the GOP selling its soul for votes. And that is a reasonable interpretation of these events.
I hope that it turns out not to be true. I pray that it turns out not to be true. But I can't help but wonder: the House leadership knew months ago that he had inappropriate contact with a page, why did they have to learn about the rest from ABC?
Are you suggesting that Hastert should have interviewed every former page?
Hastert should have interviewed or had staffers interview several current and former pages. Every page? no, but a good sample. I'd be happier if I saw evidence that he had ANY other page interviewed.
How far back?
At least a few years, say 3.
And on what evidence?
Why does he need evidence to simply ask pages "Has anyone associated with this chamber sent you emails that made you uncomfortable, or acted inappropriately toward you?
And in light of the parents' demand that this go no further than an admonition to Foley to cease correspondence?
Let's look at that - did the parents "demand" that "this go no further than an admonition to Foley"? No. They said they didn't want their son further involved in an investigation, and that they wanted the emails to stop. They did not specifically say "Don't do anything else for other pages" which is what your words imply. Keeping this particular page out of it DOES NOT negate Hastert's responsibility to protect other pages in the program.
In any event I remind you that this charge that Hastert did not go far enough comes from a party that supports gay scout masters.
Great - so what the dems think is enough to keep us from doing the right thing?
Well, retMd and highball, we'll just have to agree to disagree . You aren't changing my mind and I'm not changing your.
Tw Wash Post reports today that with the same information Hastert had, the FBI concluded when it got the emails in July their was no criminal conduct to investigate and did nothing further on the matter.
So: The media had it and did nothing cause it was nothing; the FBI had it and did nothing cause it was nothing; Hastert had it and could go no further and HE is the one who was wrong. Got it.
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.