Mark Foley. Cover up?

[KCFlyer]

But it was PROVEN he lied and committed perjury.
Simple or not the allegations were proven.
Are you saying the Swift Boat Vets lied?



This was Jerry Falwell excercising his freedom of speech. No different than Hillary going on The Today Show ranting about a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".



Dell said it right....Karl Rove learned well from Carville, Begalla and Company.

Hmmm...It was "proven" after they called him in front of a grand jury based on allegations...after it was all over the news that he "had sex with an intern". And I ask that in response to the outrage of this post

Your left wingers are already broadcasting tv/radio spots saying congress admiting covering these allegations up....

saying foley admitted having 'sexual' contacts with the pages...

Remember...before Clinton was "proven" to be guilty, the right wing had a field day with mere "allegations".

I don't think everything the Swifties said was a lie. For example, I think the statement that they served on Swift Boats in Vietnam was true. The rest of the book however...

As for the good reverend...again, this is in response to this

my book says something to the effect about bearing false witness...oh,excuse me,you don't allow or want to hear about that tawdry subject now do you?

I'm sure the good reverend's book also says something about "bearing false witness". Selling a video accusing a sitting president of murder is more that "opinion"...especially when wrapped in the pages of "the good book". Do you think Jerry's ever read the book?

 

[PITbull]

You're asking the leadership to act on information they didn't have!! Let me say this one more time...
The only information that was out there was that he had emailed this kid and the emails contained NOTHING suggestive and were deemed to be "overly friendly". He was called to the carpet on that issue by the Speaker and told not to converse with this kid any longer.
The leadership did not know of the instant messages that contained the gross comments from Foley. Now that's not to say no one knew about them because obviously someone did because they sat on them for 3 years. THOSE messages were released last Friday by ABC News and moments later were on the Moveon.org website. The question is WHO had them and why did they come out now. The timing is impeccable to say the least.
The parents didn't release them because they wanted to keep it quiet. Foley surely knew about them but for obvious reasons he didn't release them.
It'll come out eventually and then we'll have a much clearer picture of who is responsible. I have my suspicions and obviously they are much different than yours. I'll just say for the Liberal Dems sake they better hope they come out smelling like a nice fresh rose on this one because if it comes out before the election that they orchestrated this release your comments about the GOP being done for a long time will be a play on role reversal and the Donkey will be sent off to the dog food processing plant.

I am sorry AeroMan, but are you part of the congressional leadership? What information are you sure they had? Or didn't? Did thye clear the issues with you first? Are you some how privey to this information, OR are you reading the information like the rest of us?

If you've been elected to the House of Representatives, please share with us the state you represent. Then I will know that you are more credible than the average joe on the street regarding this information.

Smiling, indeed... 🙂 let's talk on Nov. 8th...

Thanks.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Well it seems to me three things are happening here. I'm not sure which but I have my suspicions.

First you are reading something I am not and coming away with more info than you're letting on to us.

Secondly you are reading the same thing I am and misunderstanding what is being reported.

Thirdly you are reading the same thing I am and understanding it fully well but choosing to distort it to make your point.

So which is it?
As for November 8th....a lot can happen in a month. Look what happened over just one weekend!

 

[Garfield1966]

Well it seems to me three things are happening here. I'm not sure which but I have my suspicions.

First you are reading something I am not and coming away with more info than you're letting on to us.

Secondly you are reading the same thing I am and misunderstanding what is being reported.

Thirdly you are reading the same thing I am and understanding it fully well but choosing to distort it to make your point.

So which is it?
As for November 8th....a lot can happen in a month. Look what happened over just one weekend!

Whatever info they had, it was enough for Hasserts aid to tell Foley to stop doing it. Now assuming that is true (why would the aid admit it if it was not?), they should have looked deeper. Why on earth would a 50+ year old man be asking for a picture of a 16 or 17 year old boy? If you take Foley's word for it, it was to make sure he was ok. A phone call would not have done the trick? That alone would have set off a few bells in my head. The fact that Hassert was not informed by his aid (if you want to believe that) is Hasserts problem. I would say he needs to hire better people to support him.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Whatever info they had, it was enough for Hasserts aid to tell Foley to stop doing it. Now assuming that is true (why would the aid admit it if it was not?), they should have looked deeper. Why on earth would a 50+ year old man be asking for a picture of a 16 or 17 year old boy? If you take Foley's word for it, it was to make sure he was ok. A phone call would not have done the trick? That alone would have set off a few bells in my head. The fact that Hassert was not informed by his aid (if you want to believe that) is Hasserts problem. I would say he needs to hire better people to support him.

Well I agree with you. It would've set off bells in my head and anyone elses head if they had half a mind so therein lies the problem. I'm just saying you have to take into consideration his point that he didn't know. If the im's weren't made available then there is some validity to his claim despite the fact he should've done more or at least had an aide do more.

 

[Garfield1966]

. I'm just saying you have to take into consideration his point that he didn't know. If the im's weren't made available then there is some validity to his claim despite the fact he should've done more or at least had an aide do more.

I disagree. When you are the boss, it’s your responsibility to know what’s going on. Assuming he did not know, then either he gave specific instructions to his staff to ‘keep him away from dangerous goods’ or his staff acted on their own in which case he needs to clean house and hire competent staff members. Either way, since he is the boss it was his responsibility to know what was going on under his roof. Whether or not he did or did not know in my eye is irrelevant. He should have known and as such I will assume that since he is the boss, he knew. Just like Enron, Tyco, Iran contra scandal … the boss is required to know what goes on. That’s why he is paid the big bucks.

 

[Seatacus]

I disagree. When you are the boss, it’s your responsibility to know what’s going on.

I think we need to get the NSA wiretapping people involved with this. Perhaps this is one wiretap the Dems will go along with. Then we need to convince them that terrorists are gay and interested in pages and we can listen in on their conversations.

 

[PITbull]

Well it seems to me three things are happening here. I'm not sure which but I have my suspicions.

First you are reading something I am not and coming away with more info than you're letting on to us.

Secondly you are reading the same thing I am and misunderstanding what is being reported.

Thirdly you are reading the same thing I am and understanding it fully well but choosing to distort it to make your point.

So which is it?
As for November 8th....a lot can happen in a month. Look what happened over just one weekend!

Well, let me turn that table on you.

Your comments are exactly what I was thinking... One of three things are happening here OR ALL THREE...

First you are reading something I am not and coming away with more info than you're letting on to us.

Perhaps, you are reading the same thing I am and misunderstanding what is being reported.

However, my hunch is this is your MO: you are reading the same thing I am and understanding it fully well but choosing to distort it to make your point.

So which is it?

 

[MrAeroMan]

Well, let me turn that table on you.

Your comments are exactly what I was thinking... One of three things are happening here OR ALL THREE...

First you are reading something I am not and coming away with more info than you're letting on to us.

Perhaps, you are reading the same thing I am and misunderstanding what is being reported.

However, my hunch is this is your MO: you are reading the same thing I am and understanding it fully well but choosing to distort it to make your point.

So which is it?

Turn the table all you want. I'm reading the same thing you are except for one big point. I'm not the one saying he knew about the salaciousness of the emails when he didn't and when the gross stuff wasn't even in emails. They were instant messages and he says he found out about them on Friday with the rest of us (unless of course your name is George Soros)
So which one is your MO?

 

[bagstacker]

funny...I just read the sorid personal exchange between the page and Foley.....may be lightly sexually slanted but I didn't see or read anything about meeting specifics as to when/where that would warrant arrest...matter of fact,looked like first amendment issues to me.....remember,we do have a constitution, except if you're a Republican...

Funny, I didn't see any republicans or conservatives hurrying to save the constitution last week when congress was voting to abolish certain important portions of it...

I wasn't sure conservatives knew that there were amendments other than the second! But be careful and keep a close eye on those guys under ivestigation, 'cause before you know it, they'll be insisting on legal representation, due process, habeas corpus, freedom, liberty, and all those other slippery, wicked, librul "rights" that are such a threat to decency, except that:

I.O.K.Y.A.R. (It's OK if You Are Republican)

That seems to be the defense/argument at work here. And I thought conservatives were against moral relativism...

Now repubs just love the constitution.(or at least their new, streamlined version?)

"Irony just threw up on hypocrisy's shoes"

 

[MrAeroMan]

Republicans have always loved the Constitution but this is really a funny issue you bring up here.
Republicans are for the right to life and Democrats are for killing unborn children. Now, when it comes to the Constitution all of a sudden the DemoLibs are for the document to be a "Living and Breathing Document" so they can promote their twisted agenda on todays populace but when it comes to a living being that has yet to be born they are against preserving the life.
Basically, DemoLibs feel they can crawl into our founding fathers heads and determine what they were thinking about a document that was established more than 200 years ago and put more stock in its life than it does in a fetus that has yet to be born.
Interesting....

I think we need to get the NSA wiretapping people involved with this. Perhaps this is one wiretap the Dems will go along with. Then we need to convince them that terrorists are gay and interested in pages and we can listen in on their conversations.

I'm assuming you saw Ann's article too? For those that didn't she hits the nail on the head....as usual. You DemoLibs are going to love this one!
Ann's View....

 

[bagstacker]

You know...if you stop and think about it...this is straight out of the Rove playbook. Guess the dems were paying attention, huh?

About time, too! But Dems can't take all the credit, did you see how fast Boehner threw Hastert under the bus? Hastert is toast. Now that DeLay is gone, Delay's Man Dennis is next. This may have been a bi-partisan effort. 😉 Don't feel too bad for them, though, they'll probably go right to work for the K street lobbyists and make a mint. We haven't seen this kind of open political implosion and infighting from repubs in a while; it is damned fine political theater... B)

 

[Garfield1966]

Turn the table all you want. I'm reading the same thing you are except for one big point. I'm not the one saying he knew about the salaciousness of the emails when he didn't and when the gross stuff wasn't even in emails. They were instant messages and he says he found out about them on Friday with the rest of us (unless of course your name is George Soros)
So which one is your MO?

Why does it matter if he knew or not? His office was informed. he is the boss and therefore he SHOULD have been advised. He is the leader of the Reps.

Do you agree that he should have known (been advised) and that the leader / boss / president of any entity is the one who has final responsibility over anything that happens under his/her tenure?

To me it sounds like an excuse. He did not know therefore it is not his responsibility. I don't buy that line of reasoning.

I support a womans right to have control over her body. I do not believe that a 2 or 3 month old fetus is a human whose rights supercede those of its host.

I can't believe you are posting something form Colter as a source. Be that as it may. I work for American Airlines. On this computer I have no expectation of privacy. If I were issued a cell phone, pager, blackberry as part of my work I would have no expectation of privacy either (you see where I am going with this right?). In all likelihood, some if not all of the solicitations took place using government property. 9th circuit would have no say in the issue. Its a simple issue of saying "hey Mark, we are taking your PC, phone... for a few days, we are conducting an investigation" You'll have it back in a bit. Here are temp replacements till we return your original stuff". My phone calls are all recorded. All my transactions are recorded. Anything I do on AA property has no expectation of privacy. What Foley does off property is his business (as long as it does not involve the use of government property). That is the only time a court order would be required and he should have the full coverage of US law.

She tends to play loose with facts. That has never stopped her before but you really need to be a bit more critical of your sources.

 

[local 12 proud]

Even though the Demolibs slam foley for political gains, deep down inside they are rejoicing that he is not only gay, but one who makes NAMBLA proud.

Expect to see him excepted into the party of choice for boy lovers after nov. with open arms, Heck he may even become a spokesperson.

That should make some pussy cats shine with pride. Your Tummy Rubber is on his way Garfield...🙂

 

[MrAeroMan]

Why does it matter if he knew or not? His office was informed. he is the boss and therefore he SHOULD have been advised. He is the leader of the Reps.

It matters because if his office wasn't informed, and I haven't seen anything yet to say his office did know, then how can they advise him about something they didn't know about? If they knew and didn't advise him that is one thing but from my understanding he didn't know and neither did they. The investigation will take care of this issue hopefully.

Do you agree that he should have known (been advised) and that the leader / boss / president of any entity is the one who has final responsibility over anything that happens under his/her tenure?

I agree that IF his staff knew then he should've been informed. Just like any entity the buck stops at the leaders desk and if someone under his/her leadership does something they shouldn't be doing the leader should deal with it when it comes out. If they don't know about it how can they deal with it? That makes no sense to me.

To me it sounds like an excuse. He did not know therefore it is not his responsibility. I don't buy that line of reasoning.

Not an excuse at all. If he didn't know how can he be held responsible? Now, if he found out and didn't act that's a different story and it's his responsiblity.

I support a womans right to have control over her body. I do not believe that a 2 or 3 month old fetus is a human whose rights supercede those of its host.

I support a womans right to choose also. She can choose to practice safe sexual practices and if something happens where she ends up pregnant then her rights are no more important that of the unborn child. Why should a fetus be killed just because the woman decides she doesn't want to be a mother. Put the child up for adoption but killing it isn't the answer. She should've thought about it before she spread her legs.

I can't believe you are posting something form Colter as a source. Be that as it may. I work for American Airlines. On this computer I have no expectation of privacy. If I were issued a cell phone, pager, blackberry as part of my work I would have no expectation of privacy either (you see where I am going with this right?). In all likelihood, some if not all of the solicitations took place using government property. 9th circuit would have no say in the issue. Its a simple issue of saying "hey Mark, we are taking your PC, phone... for a few days, we are conducting an investigation" You'll have it back in a bit. Here are temp replacements till we return your original stuff". My phone calls are all recorded. All my transactions are recorded. Anything I do on AA property has no expectation of privacy. What Foley does off property is his business (as long as it does not involve the use of government property). That is the only time a court order would be required and he should have the full coverage of US law.

She tends to play loose with facts. That has never stopped her before but you really need to be a bit more critical of your sources.

I think she's right on the money. DemoLibs hate her and that makes me love her even more.