GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

FOLEY IMs WERE A PRANK — DRUDGE BOMBSHELL

by

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.

The news come on the heels that former FBI Chief Louis Freeh has been named to investigate the mess.

Developing…

Comments

  1. This is so bizarre. I’m not convinced. Why on earth would Foley agree to a har-de-har-har joke like this? A more logical explanation is that the page is embarassed by the fact that he appeared to be sexually aroused by Foley and is now trying to play it off as a joke.

    But, if this report IS true, then Foley is owed lots of apologies. He was still too overly friendly and buddy-buddy with the young pages for anyone’s good and had no business doing so, but all of the cheap moralizing condemnations of him may have been wrong. Please let this be so.

  3. If this report is true then this is a case of anti-gay bigotry and baiting. This may become a real litmus test for the GayLeft. Does the evil of gay baiting trump political expediency? Or are you just another Uncle Tom on the Democrat Plantation?

    I suspect that the usual lower case crowd will happily confirm their Uncle Tomism but would love to be surprised by a show of integrity.

  4. As I commented to Bruce and Dan via e-mail, THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.

    If it is indeed revealed that a DNC operative leaked or “shopped” these bits of communications to media outlets hoping for an October surprise, it will be the RATS who are surprised.

    Not only that, but with Freeh running the investigation into the page program, and House subpoenas flying out, we will connect the dots and find out who the leaker was. Wonder if Nancy Pelosi is going to get “lawyered” as well?

    Also – George Soros is going to be on Fox with Neil Cavuto at 3 pm CDT. Let’s see what his reaction will be….

    Looks like the page is on the other foot, lower-case-losers. Deal with it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  5. Quick Question. What do you think would have happened to a Republican congressman if his computer were found to have child prn and fantasies about torturing, sexually abusing, and cannibalizing children on it?

    And how different would that response be than what’s happening to a seventh grade teacher on Long Island that really happened to:

    Link: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liporn1005,0,988980.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

  6. Yeah, Drudge is such a reliable “source”!

    Just another post that he will have to scrub from his site and act like it never happened!!!!

    IF the IM’s were a prank and false, why the hell did Foley resign? Politicians with his tenure DO NOT give up thier power that easily!

    Keep HOPING and SPINNING!

  7. I am not convinced they were a prank, but we will see. Although I do have a plausible (and if it is a prank likely) response to this question:

    Why on earth would Foley agree to a har-de-har-har joke like this?

    I don’t think Foley agreed to it. My guess is that Foley was unaware that he was having a prank pulled on him, and probably thought the Page was serious.

    Essentially you end up with the whole “Foley is gay, and gets chummy with the Pages” thing going around among the Pages. I am willing to bet Foley was getting chummy and saying some borderline sexual stuff, and the Page involved thought-hey wonder if I can get him to say some really bad stuff-and essentially encourages him to say more.

    Kids do this at school quite often-they will play a joke on the outcast kid, and while all the in kids are aware of it, the outcast kid doesn’t really understand it is a joke. If anyone ever read the book Carrie, this is a central piece of the story plot.

    Essentially it was knowing somebody had a weakness, and using that weakness to get in a good laugh.

    Which also could explain why Foley resigned and hasn’t offered a defense, because on his end of the computer the IMs would have been real, which sort of negates the prank aspect with regard to his responsibility, which would take us right back to Foley was a sick man who was preying on congressional Pages.

  9. It depends on if you can prove you’re innocent or not, or if by the time you can prove you are innocent anyone will believe you.

    I don’t know that anyone is claiming Foley is innocent anyhow. But there is at least reason to examine if the worst of what he is accused of is what it appears to be. Arguably, if the person he was talking to was 18 at the time, talking dirty on IM isn’t a crime at all. It *still* may be enough to resign over, but isn’t considered “child” anything.

    And if revelation of the information was a deliberate and timed Dem strategy, it doesn’t imply Foley’s innocence, just that there’s more than one skunk under the house.

  11. You know, maybe if the left tried to run a campaign based on ideas and governing strategy, instead of the smear-and-destroy methods of the Clinton WH, these things might not blow up in their silly, pasty, stringy-haired, smelly, greasy faces all the time.

  12. Just me,

    I agree after taking a second-look that Foley was not in on the joke – that this was a case of baiting and/or entrapment. I don’t think that this changes everything now, politically, but it is signficantly different situation that we have here. Foley should have known better than to have taken the bait and he should have been a lot less chummy with the pages. Except that, in reality, Foley was not a predator, just a lonely old gay guy who was weak and could be easily manipulated. Interesting. And I don’t think, frankly, that the so-called “closet” had much to do with this.

  13. #9

    First the source that supplied the emails to ABC was a verifiable “Republican”!

    And second, It’s a pretty far stretch that the Dem’s have been working for 3-5 years to set up a mid-level, not well know Republican like Foley!

    Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, the Conspiracies!

  15. NOYB who is the republican? Just wondering, because I will believe the party affiliation only after i see a name, I am not going to trust the MSM after Rathergate and Plamegate.

    Arguably, if the person he was talking to was 18 at the time, talking dirty on IM isn’t a crime at all. It *still* may be enough to resign over, but isn’t considered “child” anything.

    I agree, rather than talking pedophile, you would be talking more along the lines of the Monica Lewinski or Gary Condit stuff-salacious, but not yikes he was coming on to kids stuff.

    I don’t think he can defend his behaviorm and I am still glad he is gone.

    #12 I agree that it doesn’t change anything for Foley. But I agree that it does change the story with regard to media ethics and honestly the ethics even of the Pages.

    While I wouldn’t feel comfortable going after the Pages, I can’t say the idea of a bunch of teenagers playing a prank like this gives me warm and fuzzy feelings either, because frankly I don’t see anything funny in the whole mess. I would probably be appalled if one of my kids thought a prank like that would be fun.

  16. First the source that supplied the emails to ABC was a verifiable “Republican”!

    That’s been the latest spin attempt by leftists to cover up their leadership’s involvement.

    Actually, what Brian Ross of ABC said was this:

    Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.

    “I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party,” Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.

    In other words, the only people who identified themselves were Republicans. They were not Ross’s only sources, nor does he say they were the primary sources.

    What we know now is that Democrats have been bragging about having this material for several months — but kept it buried for political advantage.

    Kind of knocks a hole in their “you should have acted and children were endangered because you didn’t” theory, doesn’t it?

  18. Just a thought. Democrats are trying to make out that Denny Hastert is such a scumwad that he knowingly allowed a pederast free-range over an underage herd of House pages. Does that really make sense?

    I mean, leave aside the idea that Hastert is as evil as the Democrats are trying to smear him to be. Do they really think, in an election year, he would have allowed the situation to persist if he thought Foley was a real threat?

    I don’t think that Hastert is as evil or as stupid as the Democrats want to make him out to be. He probably had heard the rumors about Foley, but didn’t have anything solid enough to kick him out, and didn’t want to be tarred as a homophobe for acting on what was, until recently, rumors and innuendo. Especially since the parents of the page himself didn’t want anyone to make a big deal out of it, just wanted Foley to back off.

    I think that’s the fairest reading of the facts that we have, but of course, no one in politics is interested in facts or fairness. In restrospect, Hastert and Reynolds made a terrible mistake by not just quietly getting Foley to retire this year. But are they evil? Do they harbor predators like the Democrats imply that they do? That just doesn’t make any sense.

  19. LOL@NYOB…….and can you identify this “source”?

    Of course you can’t, puppet — because it would make it obvious that it’s a Democratic operative.

    But thanks for confirming that Democrats had this information far earlier — and chose to do nothing themselves.

    That’s why Nancy Pelosi is refusing to allow former FBI Director Freeh to lead the investigation — she knows he’s the only honest Clinton appointee.

    If she had nothing to hide, one would think she’d applaud this nomination — but she has a lot to hide.

  20. I don’t believe it. A man as politically astute as Foley would never write those IMs, especially only as a prank. He did it because he genuinely thought he could get some young A.

    Then again, Drudge has a pretty good track record of uncovering these wild twists … but that’s all that Foley’s got going for him.

    It still doesn’t explain his alcohol rehab and admission that he is gay.

  25. NAME YOUR Democratic “operative” OMG!!! Where’s YOUR proof??!!

    Well, for one, John Aravosis, who is a paid consultant for the Democratic Party, openly admitted that he had the emails “several months ago”. He and his fellow paid Democratic Party operative Mike Rogers have, as I blogged, openly admitted that they were media sources for the story.

    Interestingly enough, Rogers brags about talking to and posting the information on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee blogs, but whines about how the Dems are deleting them now.

    Gee, wonder why Dems are trying to get rid of evidence that clearly shows they had this stuff so far before it was released?

  26. I hate to say “I told y’all so,” but I did. I postulated in a few posts down that it wouldn’t surprise me that anyone who saved IMs (even a young man ages 16-17) was doing so to either grind an axe or play “gotcha” with someone.

    Looks like Drudge has confirmed it for me in one fell swoop.

    And leftiswrong, I know you’re out there. Guess what. It’s Thursday and unlike your earlier prediction, HASTERT HAS NOT RESIGNED.

    If he doesn’t do it by Sunday, consider yourself snapped. And I am 99% sure he won’t, either.

    This whole incident is starting to unravel like the Wellstone memorial, Dan Rather’s hit piece and John Kerry’s backhanded swipe at Mary Cheney. When will you libtards learn??

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  28. “It’s a pretty far stretch that the Dem’s have been working for 3-5 years to set up a mid-level, not well know Republican like Foley!”

    A congressional election occurs predictably every two years, and Foley has long been rumored to be gay – apparently it’s an open secret in his district.

    The Dems play dirty, year in and year out – they just plain stole a presidential election in 1960. Hell, they’re probably working on their smear campaigns for 2012. The Dems are very – what’s the word? – proactive in their character assasination efforts.

  29. “You know, maybe if the left tried to run a campaign based on ideas and governing strategy, instead of the smear-and-destroy methods of the Clinton WH, ”

    That’s all true. However in this case, they are using smear tactics that are specifically of the Bush WH. It’s homophobic bullshit aimed at a homphobic strategy. This is exactly the kind of move that Sun Zi recommneds. Aside from destroying a member of the opposing force with one of that force’s weapons, it may also serve to reduce the uselfulness of the weapon for now on. Whether because the IMs were false and thus may discredit subsequent “evidence”, or whether because they were true but the tactic can take out players on both sides and is too dangerus to use, doesn’t matter if the effect is to discredit gay-baiting as a political weapon. Yes, some individuals got chewed up in the process. They are public rather than private individuals, and the damage they have sustained is to their public rather than to their private lives.

  30. lol doesn’t matter if the im’s are real or not. foley’s a troll. can you imagine how many young men he’s propositioned. his fricken hard drive is probably loaded. when i see pictures of him, all i see is a leery-eyed troll. and i have seen a few of them, hun. the chicago tribune has a nice article on the legality of his behavior. he’s guilty of sexual harassment if anything. but the bottom line still remains, foley is a troll. and i for one am glad he is no longer a legislator. besides, this country has far larger fish to fry and this is just a waste of time and a distraction.

  31. #20 I don’t believe it. A man as politically astute as Foley would never write those IMs, especially only as a prank. He did it because he genuinely thought he could get some young A.

    If the IMs are a prank, I suspect that Foley was unaware of the prank, ie Foley actually thought he was IMing with somebody interested in that discussion rather than pulling a prank.

    Which is why the “prank” aspect doesn’t really change much about my opinion of Foley.

    What it may reflect is how careful ABC was in its vetting of the various IMs, and that coupled with the variations in age, reflect poorly on the reporting, and possibly the intentions of the DNC.

    As for a set up, I think the fact that two years ago the DNC knew this midterm was coming-that a 2-3 year plot isn’t totally beyond belief-since this is the first major election since 2004.

  32. Whether because the IMs were false and thus may discredit subsequent “evidence”, or whether because they were true but the tactic can take out players on both sides and is too dangerus to use, doesn’t matter if the effect is to discredit gay-baiting as a political weapon.

    Hello? The worst of the gaybaiters are having handed to them evidence on a silver platter that gays are perverts and pedophiles.

    What do you think the first example will be the next time the question of gay adoption is debated?

    What do you think the first example will be the next time the question of gays coaching and teaching in schools is raised?

    As I’ve been saying since this whole thing broke, if Foley had outed himself after the fact, it would have been like McGreevey, looking like he was trying to use sexual orientation as an excuse. But instead, we have idiots like Mike Rogers and John Aravosis who had to play the “Foley is gay and that’s why he’s a pedophile” card, Democrat leaders who were all too willing to manipulate them, and worst of all, people like Jim who are spinning excuses for them.

  33. If the “MAF54” end of the IM conversations was Foley — and nobody appears to claim it wasn’t — it doesn’t make any difference that the young page was faking his end of the conversations as a “prank”.

    A 52-year-old man — Member of Congress or not — has no business engaging in those types of conversations with a teenager. Even if Foley was “led on” — and I’ll await the results of an investigation to determine that — his willingness to participate made him unfit to serve in the Congress and have contact with the pages.

    If the left was nefariously involved in any of this ugly mess I hope they get their comeuppance. And the right doesn’t look good by trying to focus attention on the timing of the revelations and the source(s) of the information to ABC instead of the important question of why the “Katrina” e-mail didn’t raise more red flags among House leaders.

    I don’t have a problem with Mark Foley being gay. I wish there were a lot more gays in public office so we’d have a greater voice in public affairs. But, let’s be honest, in any environment — politics, education, business, sports, you name it — if an adult male widely known to be gay, or at least suspected of being gay, starts getting chummy with teenage boys alarms ought to go off. It may be totally innocent — like when I take the boy who mows my lawn out for pizza at the end of the mowing season — or it may be something else.

    In the Foley case, someone in the House leadership or staff — an unvestigation needs to determine who — ignored the alarm bells.

  34. “Hello? The worst of the gaybaiters are having handed to them evidence on a silver platter that gays are perverts and pedophiles.”

    Hello? The worst of the gaybaiters just got handed the head of one of their one lopped off with their bigotry.

    if they are dishonest enough to confuse pedophilia, desire for prepubescent children, with what Foley is accused of, the only debate you can have with them is with a loaded gun. What Foley is accused of is in fact ephebophilia. That is a medical distinction, irrespective of this or that law or age of consent in this or that state. If they are so dishonest as to say that gong after teens is something straight middle-aged guys do as much or more, then they aren’t worth talking to except with a loaded gun. Scratch the loaded gun – taking out their political operatives will do.

    The Democrats have dirty, dirty hands when it comes to homphobia, especially when it comes to sucking butt on black churches. That doesn’t clear the Rove machine – I won’t say Republicans, because Republicans were the first victims of the Dixiecrat-as-Republicans tumor in the body of the party – but the Rove machine has made a conscious effort to use homophobia to its advantage, and now a vote in Congress that they need for their plans has been taken down. Damn both the Democrats and the Dixiecrats on this issue.

  35. “Shaking my head and walking away——–

    From you delusional, finger pointing, conspiracy obsessed, “Puppets”!

    Think what you want of me, but some of you guys are either propaganda pushing fruads or just plain NUTZ!

  36. come on guys, you know that every politican that has done something nefarious, first denies any complicity. it’s deny. deny, deny until proven. ….you know what would be really interesting to know is if foley ever stopped his “salacious” behavior toward pages. and have you seen hastert’s challenger…what a hottie.

  37. Hello? The worst of the gaybaiters just got handed the head of one of their one lopped off with their bigotry.

    Are you out of your mind?

    Since 1997, Foley’s HRC scores have been some of the highest of any Republican — indeed, in 1999 – 2000, he got a 100%. Foley voted AGAINST the FMA and MPA.

    Thanks; now the wingers have proof that, if someone is gay-friendly, they’re a pedophile. Aren’t you glad you helped?

  38. Guys, don’t let your partisanship get in the way of common sense. It is more than clear that Foley was chasing after many pages. This can’t be explained away as a prank, unless everyone was pranking him, and you still have the issue of Foley’s conduct.

  39. Ugh. I don’t know if Drudge updated after the copy/paste here or what. Here is what Drudge says:

    “The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.”

  40. Foley resigned, unlike Democrat Predator Gerry Studds, who was embraced by the Democrats despite going way beyond inappropriate emails. Much like Mel Reynolds, another Democrat sexual predator who was pardoned by yet another Democrat sexual predator, Bill Clinton.

    In any case, is anybody else wondering why (liberal Democrat) Fred Phelps and his merry gang of misanthropes was going to be protesting at the funerals of Amish girls instead of the home/office of Mark Foley?

  41. -Thanks; now the wingers have proof that, if someone is gay-friendly, they’re a pedophile. Aren’t you glad you helped? –

    The problem is that if Foley was sending messages to these pages, it was going to be revealed at some point, by someone, whether it was a Democrat, a conservative Republican who hates moderates, or just someone who was disgusted by his behavior. Really, Foley did the damage here, if he had behaved responsibly, then he wouldn’t have been put in this position. So he’s the one who helped push this. And while there’s no doubt Democrats are using this for political gain, Republicans or conservatives (Tony Perkins, Bay Buchanan, Pat Buchanan) are often the ones who seem to be going on TV saying gays are pedophiles, or gays should not serve in Congress, and so on.

  42. It seems to me Drudge is just muddying the waters after his “17 year old beast” comments blaming the victims went mainstream this morning.

    As many have said, even if it was a joke Foley is clearing playing for real and apparently been at it for a long time. The whole closet mindset is what is to blame. A lifetime misrepresenting yourself gives one practice at this sort of compartmentalized morals.

    Hopefully things are better for the younger generation who see now they do not need to hide who they are any more. I have to believe there will be far fewer closet cases like Foley in the future – that is if the conservatives and the GOP do not turn back the progress of the past 30 years.

  43. I think everyone here has been hitting the bottle a little too hard.

    Has everyone forgotten that Mark Foley has yet to dispute the validaty of any of these instant messages and that his lawyer had the ability to do just that yesterday but instead announced to the world that Foley had entered into rehab and was molested by a clergyman as a young teen?

    If Republicans continue on this suicide mission of trying to expose the victims in an effort to prove this is some sort of Democratic plot, you’re only going to end up looking worse to the American public.

  44. You guys who are looking forward to a Freeh investigation are dreaming. The Democrat war rooms and dirty tricks brigade don’t care about truths or who is innocent. They smear and know names can’t be cleared in time to prevent damage. Whether it’s Bushes DUI, W’s NAtl Guard, Allens macacca, Allens a Jew, Cheneys daughter is lesbian, Bush paid for an aborton.It’s all dirty tricks. By the time the truth leaks out they figure the damage will be done. This is just the beginning of their dirty tricks prior to Nov 7th. They can’t win votes by selling their platform or program. They win elections like Stalinists. Slash and burn baby.

  46. “Whether it’s Bushes DUI, W’s NAtl Guard, Allens macacca, Allens a Jew, Cheneys daughter is lesbian, Bush paid for an aborton.It’s all dirty tricks” hmmmm. seems like these are all facts. smear is calling someone a stalinist. didn’t your mother teach you to critically think, eugene??

  47. Nobody is saying that Foley is innocent, Chase. Even if this was a prank, Foley’s behavior and response to it is inexcusable.

    However, the scenario here is this: Democrats knew Foley was susceptible, set him up, and then sat on it until the fall election cycle.

    That in and of itself is bad enough. However, it gets really bad when they have the unmitigated gall to claim that children were endangered by not exposing Foley — when the simple fact of the matter is that they waited until it was most politically expedient to do it.

    If Foley is a danger to children, then Pelosi and the rest of the Dems stand accused of deliberately endangering children to score political points. If he is not, then their argument is hollow and pointless.

  48. Oh my god. You actually buy this from the closeted Drudge.

    You purchases of this insanity must derive from the same part of your brain that endorses the views of a psychologist who writes that gay men are inherently ephebophiliac.

    It was all a prank! A silly prank by a 50 year old man palling around with teenagers who convinced him to make sexual suggestions to their buds. Of course the sources aren’t named. I wonder why!

  49. foley didn’t hurt any kids. he just abused his position for vicarious delight. anyone who is a page is no dumbie and 16. hastert may well have put the kibosh on foley and foley may have acquiesced. but the deed was done. imagine that you a fervent democrat and had been a page and had been hit on by the troll. you are now 20 years old and want to oust the neocons. take it from there.

  51. #43: “If Republicans continue on this suicide mission of trying to expose the victims in an effort to prove this is some sort of Democratic plot, you’re only going to end up looking worse to the American public.”

    They already look pretty bad http://tinyurl.com/oeb3b :

    “about half of likely voters say recent disclosures of corruption and scandal in Congress will be very or extremely important when they cast their vote next month.”

    Even Tom Reynolds, the NRCC head is now down by 5 in the latest poll. His bizarre hiding-behind-the-children stunt yesterday won’t help.

    I can’t fail to notice the mood of desperation around here as even silly propositions like Foley’s sleazy ways were just a prank gone awry are greeted with breathless squeals of hopeful delight. About the only way the GOP can hope to keep a majority in the House is if they apply a major tweak to as many Diebold machines as they can get their paws on or failing that, perhaps Bushco can try bombing Iran. Otherwise, I think you all better get used to saying, respectfully of course, “Speaker Pelosi.”

    But hey, if you’re nice to me, I’ll put a good word in for you at the re-education camps! 😉

  53. seems there was a joint news conference later that both parties conceded it was consensual. must be some peeps are better than other at discerning who wants what. vs. trying for the unattainable .

  55. “I can’t fail to notice the mood of desperation around here as even silly propositions like Foley’s sleazy ways were just a prank gone awry are greeted with breathless squeals of hopeful delight. About the only way the GOP can hope to keep a majority in the House is if they apply a major tweak to as many Diebold machines as they can get their paws on or failing that, perhaps Bushco can try bombing Iran. Otherwise, I think you all better get used to saying, respectfully of course, “Speaker Pelosi.”

    The horror! The horror!

    Imagine it. A party that has gained sizable portions of its power by exploiting homophobia now becomes a victim of the homophobia it has exploited. (See Mr.Rove’s history. See the campaigns against gay marriage, including the president’s support of a Constitutional amendment.) In order not to face this reality, the Gay Patriots are trying to pin the homophobic hysteria on Democrats and progressives in general.

    And yet, combing this site, I can’t find a single example of a Democrat really grandstanding on this issue, at least not anywhere to the extent that Brucey is grandstanding about “progressives.” All of the conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia/pederasty/ephebophilia is coming from the right, as far as I can see.

    Let’s see some real evidence of Democrats aggressively exploiting this. What I see is most of them standing by and watching while the Republicans, who change their stories every other day and make pathetic excuses, implode. It is quite sensible to note that the protection of Foley by Hastert and friends is an example of what happens when absolute power is valued above all else. But I don’t see any Dems running around like the Republicans in their headless-chicken-dance.

    On the other hand, it’s hard not to gloat, seeing the chicken of queer bashing come home to roost. And of course this fact has such potential to shatter the delusions of the Gay Patriots, who have spent much bandwitdh spinning their party’s stand on gay matters, that they must now resort to absurdist narratives like the Drudge one.

    Ain’t it a bummer when your Weltanschauung gets splattered with the bugs of reality?

  56. “Speaker Pelosi”, for some reason, is now kicking and screaming, refusing to testify under oath about when SHE knew about the Foley situation — and blocking the appointment of an outside investigator.

    The reason why is understandable; Pelosi is too arrogant and stupid to understand that her sitting on the instant messages was not compatible with her argument that children were endangered by an alleged refusal to act on the part of the Republicans.

    What we see is that the Republicans were notified of the emails and acted accordingly.

    What we also see is that the Democrats knew of BOTH the emails AND the instant messages and held them until it would cause maximum political damage — which would mean, by their rhetoric, that they endangered children for political gain.

    Add to that the fact that people like IanRaj are now saying that sex with minors is wrong, evil, and should be punished, but criminalizing sex or instant messaging with minors is “imposing religious values”. Anyone who’s seen the Dems’ gyrations over the past decades to both promote and protect sex with and among minors by blocking any restrictions on it whatsoever knows full well that they have zero qualms with it — which makes the argument even more hollow.

  57. #56: Come on N-Dobson-T, say it again, Speaker Pelosi. There, you can do it without beads of sweat popping out on your brow. Heh-heh. BTW, when are you going to apologize for your lies about Neil Giuliano?

    As for “Republicans were notified of the emails and acted accordingly”, yup you’re right. They acted just as one would expect them to with faced with the potential loss of a House seat: they swept Foley’s behavior under the rug and kept Dems in the dark about it. Devious political calculators all the way. Since they’ve been exposed, the GOP House leadership has been skittering around like the cockroaches they are contradicting each other virtually on an hourly basis.

    As for “the Democrats knew of BOTH the emails AND the instant messages and held them until it would cause maximum political damage”, this was hardly the best time to release the info. After all, the breathtaking bombshells exposed in Woodward’s book on Bushco’s disastrous foreign policy has been have been overshadowed by Foleygate and its attempted coverup by the “Foley Five.” No, it would have been far better to wait a week or two to do the most damage. But, alas, no one is buying your talking point whine that the Dems did it. No, this is a purely Republican scandal that was even exposed by Republicans. We Dems are just sitting back enjoying our popcorn.

    “Speaker Pelosi”. Quite a catchy phrase don’t you think?

  58. let me see if i have this right. foley’s a fag. everyone who cares about this sheet(sp) in dc knows it. no children were endangered. it’s all about using one’s position for personal gratification, who the hell is hollow here. rotf

  59. LOL….if that were the case, IanRaj, why, then, is “Speaker Pelosi” refusing to testify under oath as to her knowledge and trying to sabotage an external investigation?

    As for “Republicans were notified of the emails and acted accordingly”, yup you’re right. They acted just as one would expect them to with faced with the potential loss of a House seat: they swept Foley’s behavior under the rug and kept Dems in the dark about it.

    Nope; they reacted in a manner completely in accordance with the page’s family’s wishes.

    however, since “Speaker Pelosi” had her sweaty hands on these emails months ago and had no such restrictions, why didn’t SHE act? SHE could have informed the page board, or gone to the media.

    This is why “Speaker Pelosi” is running like hell away from her own investigation; she knows that she can’t keep her story straight under oath.

  62. right, like a family’s wishes usurps the commission of a crime.

    There are two ways of looking at that, markie.

    One, if those emails constituted a crime, then why did no newspaper or investigating agency to which they were referred think so, including the FBI?

    Two, if those emails constituted a crime, then why did “Speaker Pelosi” cover them up for so long and wait until October?

    A family’s wishes do not override the prosecution of a crime per se. However, the general consensus is that the emails, while odd, did not constitute a crime.

    Furthermore, remember that you are on the side of puppet IanRaj, which means that criminalizing sex or sexual talk with minors is “imposing religious values into law” and is therefore wrong. You can’t claim that something is illegal when you oppose the law that makes it so.

  64. like, i don’t know who is behind all of this sheet(sp). and in the overall scheme of things, it doesn’t matter. foley is a troll and a known one at that. anyone who knew of his proclivities and didn’t nip it in the butt, doesn’t deserve to belong in congress. so take it from there.

  65. the emails are irrelevant and innocuous. the im’s and advances are.

    Couldn’t agree with you more.

    But Republican leadership had the emails; “Speaker Pelosi” had the IMs.

    Who should have acted? The ones with the “irrelevant and innocuous” information, or the one with the IMs?

  67. >But Republican leadership had the emails; “Speaker Pelosi” had the IMs.
    Do have any proof of this, or you just wish that to be true? So far there’s been many allegations of this sort, with not a single fact to back this. Some guy on FoxNews said he knows a reporter that has information that it was Dem’s conspiracy, but for some reason she prefers to keep that information to herself. Haster somehow quotes this guy as a proof that Clinton is behind this.
    This mythical “reporter” probably just read something about those “gay activists” that were threatening to “out” Foley for years, and that have almost nothing to do with story. Given the fact that Foley being gay was an open secret, the fact that some group wanted to play this dirty “outing” game with him in no way proves that there was a conspiracy.
    Pelosi says that she has problems with the way the investigation goes so far (like it’s not bipartisan), somebody presents this fact as a proof she’s trying to hide something.
    It’s obvious you want this to be a vast conspiracy, but so far that’s just what you want it to be.

  68. #67: “Do have any proof of this, or you just wish that to be true?”

    NDT has a very fertile imagination. Few if any of his fantasies bear any relation to reality. That’s why he rarely provides links and on the odd occasion when he does, they never back him up.

  69. Hey Bruce, I think you need an update to this post http://tinyurl.com/ladf4:

    “The attorney disputed as “a piece of fiction” a report on a widely viewed Internet site, The Drudge Report, that Edmund’s exchanges with Foley were a prank by the page.

    Jones said, “There is not any aspect of this matter that is a practical joke nor should anyone treat it that way.” “

  71. I’d like to see how many pages worked around Barney Frank (D-MA) and felt “uncomfortable” around him.

    Birds of a feather flock together, you know.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  72. Why does Hastert sound just like Bush when it coems to Iraq, Katrina, torture etc?
    Hasstert Said:
    “Could we have done it better? Could the page board have handled it better? In retrospect, probably yes,” Hastert said. “But at the time what we knew and what we acted upon was what we had.” “

  73. Given the fact that Foley being gay was an open secret, the fact that some group wanted to play this dirty “outing” game with him in no way proves that there was a conspiracy.

    I actually blogged a few days ago how amazing it was that paid Democratic operatives Mike Rogers and John Aravosis, both of whom brag about their connections to House leadership, were bragging about how far in advance they had the information — and that they were feeding it to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

    Interestingly enough, the DCCC is now going through and deleting Rogers’s comments from their blog. Why? They only show that Democrats knew about Foley months ago and did nothing.

  78. and i stil want you ian. and there is this:There’s trouble in a school for scandal
    October 6, 2006

    Mark Twain probably had tongue in cheek when he remarked that “Congress is our only native criminal class,” but maybe he was wiser and more prescient than he knew.
    Karl Marx was closer to the mark: “History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.” And what about the third time, fourth time and the times after that? But you don’t have to be George Will to reach for Bartlett’s Quotations to describe the result when Congress puts its collective mind to brewing scandal. Just listen to the players:
    “I think ‘resignation’ is exactly what our opponents would like to have happen,” House Speaker Dennis Hastert said yesterday as cries for his resignation grew louder. His opponents would like it “that I’d fold my tent and others would fold our tent and they would sweep the House.” (After all that tent-folding, he forgot to say, the terrorists will have won.)
    It’s not easy to be a Republican leader this morning, trying to think of something clever (and distracting) to say. You have to think outside the unfolded tent. But not all Republicans are wary of offending the people who sent them here.
    “I think the base has to realize that after a while, ‘Who knew about it? Who knew what, and when?’ When the base finds out who’s feeding this monster, they’re not going to be happy. The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros.”
    But Mr. Hastert and his allies, the ones who knew that Mark Foley sees young boys as tasty appetizers on the congressional menu, are themselves “feeding the monster.” It’s true that George Soros, Nancy Pelosi and “Democratic operatives” are enjoying this immensely, but there would be no allegations if Mark Foley and his Republican enablers had not given the allegators so much to allegate. That’s the point they ignore inside the Beltway, but it rarely escapes the folks in flyover land.
    Only yesterday, the Republicans arrived as the new power brokers in Washington, full of idealism — or what passes for idealism hereabouts — and heady resolve, eager to take out the garbage of six decades of Democratic rule in the House of Representatives. Everything was going to be different. This time they meant it. Hadn’t they put it in a contract? There would be no more winking at graft, no more nods to bribers, and the newcomers to town understood that these were not going to be permanent places at the pig trough. But when the courts knocked down congressional term limits you could hear the sighs of relief from Salem to Seattle. The Washington gravy train was just more fun than anyone dreamed it would be.
    It’s certainly true that Democrats are at least as randy and irresponsible as the Republicans, and until Mark Foley reminded everyone that gaiety can be a Republican weakness, too, most of the beds with live boys and not dead girls were thought to be Democratic beds. Rep. Gerry Studds famously turned his back on his colleagues when they censured him and won re-election after re-election in Massachusetts, where the Kennedys had long before inured the public conscience to sexual outrage. He became the icon on the double standard. But Democratic sins are no shield for Republican iniquity. Just as the Republicans must remember who sent them here, conservatives must remember why they sent the Republicans here.
    Process is always easier than repentance and restitution. Mr. Hastert thinks a reform of the page program will make everything nifty again, but it’s neither the pages nor the system who need reform. It’s the men who run the system. The people in flyover land understand this.
    The Republicans who search for a Clinton analogy to the Foley scandal could try this one: Nobody really understood arcane Arkansas land deals and complicated sweetheart bank loans, and “Whitewater” was winding down to the sea of forgetfulness. But everybody understood Monica, the abuse of interns and lying under oath about sex, and the Clinton years came to be defined as sex between the Bushes. There’s always room for more pols in that land called Oblivion.

  79. as i look back over this thread. i have to shake my head. how is it that conservatives, at times, inevitably follow blindly without a critically thought? that good word liberal means: ample and full, while conservative means moderate and cautious. in world that due to human influence, is advancing at a breakneck pace, why would one want to operate with a mind set that says, “oh ya we can just keep on doing what we have have done in the past”, when out past mistakes are about to cause us much harm.

  80. in world that due to human influence, is advancing at a breakneck pace, why would one want to operate with a mind set that says, “oh ya we can just keep on doing what we have have done in the past”, when out past mistakes are about to cause us much harm.

    Mainly because, as the French put it, “Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose”.

    Or, in scientific terms, the advent of relativity did not invalidate and sweep away Newton’s laws of motion.

  83. MS. ALBRIGHT HAD IT RIGHT WHEN SHE WAS QUOTED IN THE GUARDIAN: if certainties such as the war in iraq and the axis of evil are based on a religious belief that god is on our side–vertsus we should be on god’s side as lincoln said–then certitude creates a foreign policy problem.

  85. who the fook is defending foley. he’s a troll. the neocon house of cards is falling down big time, go read eisenhower’s farewell speech to know what a true republican is all about.

  86. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCpGiNVw0zQ&mode=related&search= Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

    ——————————————————————————–

    Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040

    My fellow Americans:

    Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

    This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

    Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

    Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

    My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

    In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

    II.

    We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

    III.

    Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

    Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology — global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle — with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

    Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

    But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs — balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage — balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

    The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.

    IV.

    A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

    Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

    and is gravely to be regarded.
    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    V.

    Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

    VI.

    Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

    Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

    Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war — as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years — I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

    Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

    VII.

    So — in this my last good night to you as your President — I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

    You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.

    To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration:

    We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

  87. anyone of you stupid fags, who ever voted for bush, need to think about crawling back into the hole you came out of. you are a disgrace to humanity, not to mention our kind.