[Alberta's Child]

The difference here is that nobody is defending Foley. And the big difference is that Republicans -- unlike Democrats -- have a sense of public shame . . . which is why Foley's @ss was out the door even before anyone knew why his @ss was out the door.

[Stone Mountain]

The difference here is that nobody is defending Foley.

Au contraire.

"These kids were participants not victims."

He didn't touch any of these pages, as far as I have heard, and the age of consent in enlightened Washington DC is 16.

Foley: "I did not have sex with that page." (true) Clinton: "I did not have sex with that intern." (false)

But were these boys minors in DC, since the age limit is 16 there?

ha anyone addressed the fact that the IMs were two-way conversations. Foley was not spamming ex-pages' email accounts. Anyone who did not want to communicate with him simply did not have to answer him.

from the IMs, it sure looks like the page enjoyed it, and admitted he was getting turned on 'a little'.

There's the usual defenses. If not to make him look innocent, at least to ameliorate some of the charges. But of course, it doesn't work. Just because the boy was 16 doesn't make him a minor? What would be saying if Barney Frank had solicited a 16-year-old for sex? Also, the usual "he wanted it" defense and of course, the comparisons to Clinton. Weak defenses to be sure, but they are certainly out there.

[carton253]

I don't think my post says what you think it does.