October 3, 2006

The Washington Times on Mark Foley (hint: they use the word "disgrace")

Incredible.

When you read this, remember it's the Washington Times - not the Washington Post.
The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. [emphasis added]

Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey.
An open secret among the pages.
Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. The matter wasn't pursued aggressively. It was barely pursued at all. [emphasis added]
Amazing - this is from Ronald Reagan's favorite newspaper.
Now the scandal must unfold on the front pages of the newspapers and on the television screens, as transcripts of lewd messages emerge and doubts are rightly raised about the forthrightness of the Republican stewards of the 109th Congress. Some Democrats are attempting to make this "a Republican scandal," and they shouldn't; Democrats have contributed more than their share of characters in the tawdry history of congressional sexual scandals. [emphasis added]
This is one place where I differ from the editorial.

It would not be a "Republican scandal" because Foley is a member of the GOP.

No, it's a "Republican scandal" because it looks like Speaker Hastert and the Republican house members worked to cover it up.

But here's the huge news:
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once. Either he was grossly negligent for not taking the red flags fully into account and ordering a swift investigation, for not even remembering the order of events leading up to last week's revelations -- or he deliberately looked the other way in hopes that a brewing scandal would simply blow away. He gave phony answers Friday to the old and ever-relevant questions of what did he know and when did he know it? Mr. Hastert has forfeited the confidence of the public and his party, and he cannot preside over the necessary coming investigation, an investigation that must examine his own inept performance.
Here's the important part again.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert must do the only right thing, and resign his speakership at once.
Josh Marshal has a list of some House members' reactions to the Foley scandal. So far, Melissa Hart's not on it.

Has anyone contacted Melissa Hart to get her comments? I put in a call last night, but as it was after business hours I was only able to leave a voice message.

If anyone get's hold of a comment, please e-mail it in.

This is serious. The Washington Times even says so.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE (8:00am): I just found John Delano's reporting on this. The piece is a compare/contrast the reactions between two local House Members, Hart and Democrat Mike Doyle. The bottom line (and it is literally at the bottom - it's the last paragraph) is this:
Both Hart and Doyle say if house leaders, or anyone else, knew what Foley was doing and didn't report it to the authorities, they should be fully prosecuted.
So I guess we have an answer.

Though Melissa Hart still seems to be covering for her party members:
But Hart, a Republican, and Doyle, a Democrat, disagree about whether Republican leaders should have acted sooner when they learned months ago about Foley's e-mail.

"Well, the first e-mail was e-mail was of a non-sexual content, it is my understanding," said Hart.

"You ask your nieces and nephews what they want for their birthday," said Doyle. "You don't ask total strangers that. It doesn't pass the common sense test. It should have raised an alarm bell." [emphasis added]
It's absolutely true what she says about the first e-mail - it's also completely beside the point. Check this timeline out. This is where it all began. This is the initial exchange where the page in question describes it as "freaked me out." And actually the first e-mail there says this:
do I have the right email

Mark Foley
It's the second e-mail where Mark Foley asks the kid "how old are you now?" In the third e-mail, he asks "what do you want for your birthday coming up" and "what stuff do you like to do?" And finally in the fifth e-mail, he asks for a picture. That's where the page described things as "sick."

Within the context of the whole packet of e-mails, it's obvious that something more was going on than "non-sexual content." The page certainly thought so.

Gotta run!

6 comments:

  1. The Washington Times is a far right wing publication. It's not surprisng to hear their hysterics.

    Foley resigned even though he has not been accused of anything illegal.

    He didn't lie under oath like Bill Clinton did, and the boy was NOT underage according to the laws of the District of Columbia, where age of consent is 16.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The boy was underage under Florida State Law (Pervy was emailing the kid in FLA) and according to Federal law:

    1. Florida state law:
    The age of consent in Florida is 16 if the accused is 24 or under. Otherwise it is 18.

    See the law:
    794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.–(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, “sexual activity” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.

    2. Federal Law:
    U]nder the so-called “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006” (of which Foley was a co-sponsor), along with 18 U.S.C. 2251, discussion or solicitation of sexual acts between Foley and any “minor” under the age of 18 would appear to be a criminal offense…Republicans drew the line of age of consent at 18 when, with overwhelming support, they enacted the “Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,” which the President signed into law (with Mark Foley standing behind him). By definition, then, they consider the acts in which Foley apparently engaged to be criminal. They even enhanced the penalties for this conduct. For those purposes, it doesn’t really matter what states have designated as the age of consent because House Republicans have declared it to be a federal crime to solicit or discuss sexual acts with someone under the age of 18.

    Read that law here.

    See a picture of Foley at the signing ceremony for that law here.

    Furthermore:

    You're either with the pedophiles or you're against them.

    Hastert ignored it and covered it up and then covered up the coverup.

    He's with the pedophiles.

    You're defending not only Hastert, but Foley, so you're with the pedophiles too.

    But go on and keep trying to defend the undefendable.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey! You really sure you want to defend these thugs?

    New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote

    "Former Congressman Mark Foley (R-FL) interrupted a vote on the floor of the House in 2003 to engage in Internet sex with a high school student who had served as a congressional page, according to new Internet instant messages provided to ABC News by former pages."


    Yes, of course you want to defend them. Shows a lot about your character.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jeebus! The vote was on HR 1559, Emergency War Time supplemental appropriations.

    Nothing like delaying the war effort you support to get your swerve on.

    (And, then he invited the underage teen and his underage teen friends over for drinks.)

    But PLEASE, by all means keep defending him and those who covered up for him!

    ReplyDelete
  5. some republicans will defend anything because they just can not admit to themselves that ANYONE in god's party could be a perv or worse, cover up for a perv.


    yeah, lying about a bj(even under oath) with a young woman that flashed her thong at the guy is so much worse than targeting and seducing young kids. OR covering up for the sick perv that is doing it. what baloney!

    i'm begining to think that it's the bj that got everyone riled up. maybe if clinton had just had regular missionary sex no one would have had and still be having such a hissy!

    if they don't have the grace about them or the common sense to admit that there is a world of difference between foley's actions and clinton, perhaps they need to sit down with their blankies and a cup of warm milk and let the grown ups handle things!
    my god, there is NO way to defend a predator!

    ReplyDelete