0
   

Foley Quits Amid Allegations of Email Sex Scandal

 
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 11:24 am
Date Posted: 10/02/2006 10:56 AM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush photographed praising Foley as child-sex S.W.A.T. team leader!!! (28 comments
READ MORE: 2006, Investigations, George W. Bush


July 27, 2006 - George W. Bush - with his hand on a page (of a bill he's signing) looks in the direction of Rep. Mark Foley (grey suit, blue tie, bulge in his pocket - his Blackberry)


The White House is moving at full steam to distance the President from Mark Foley. The last thing it needs now is there to be a soundbite from the President praising Mark Foley - or a photograph with George Bush and Mark Foley at the White House within a few feet of each other.

Especially if either occurred in the last few months - at a time when the entire Republican House leadership was aware that they probably had a child sex predator in their midst - certainly someone whose actions warranted an investigation.

And especially if the Presidential praise is for Mark Foley's leadership on the hot topic of protecting children from pedophiles and predators who use the internet to hit on underage kids.

Gosh darn! Too late...

That's what the photo above shows.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/bush-photographed-praisin_b_30726.html
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 11:28 am
And Ticomaya's reaction? "Well, I think it might not be illegal."


...good grief
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 11:31 am
Let's face it, all conservative moralists are closet pederasts. Or worse.

(I don't really believe that, but I get a kick out of the righties who say that all liberals are thus and so. It's fun!)
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 11:37 am
okie wrote:
...
Let me reinterate one thing clearly. I never defended Foley. My posts have been simply for the purpose of pointing out liberal hypocrisy and a liberal double standard. Morality and corruption should be a non-partisan issue. People that are found to be corrupt should be opposed by both parties in every case, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Once a party is more important than getting rid of corrupt politicians, we are in huge trouble, and that is why Clinton is constantly brought up as a reminder of this failure that needs to be corrected. The hatchet needs to swing both ways, not just as a political weapon to be used selectively whenever you think it might help your own party.


I agree that you did not defend Foley, and I agree with McG that comments about rape of children by Foley are out of line. However, I don't think you can draw a comparison between Clinton's cheating on his wife and Foley soliciting children. Unfortunately, people cheat on their wives and husbands fairly routinely. It's not a crime (assuming it is consensual) and it is so commonplace that we all probably personally know of several cases. I think what Clinton did was reprehensible, both as a betrayal of his wife and because he was in a position of authority. If a CEO engaged in similar activity with an employee, the board should show him the door. That said, Foley is in a whole other league. Using the Internet to IM teenage boys (who might be of the age of consent or not depending on the boy and the state) just isn't the same thing and trying to tie them together is disingenuous.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 11:43 am
E-mails Show Foley Sought to Rendezvous with Page
October 02, 2006 12:14 PM

Brian Ross and Maddy Sauer Report:

In addition to explicit sexual language, former Congressman Mark Foley's Internet messages also include repeated efforts to get the underage recipient to rendezvous with him at night.

"I would drive a few miles for a hot stud like you," Foley said in one message obtained by ABC News.

The FBI says it has opened a "preliminary investigation" of Foley's e-mails. Federal law enforcement officials say attempts by Foley to meet in person could constitute the necessary evidence for a federal charge of "soliciting for sex" with a minor on the Internet.

In another message, Foley, using the screen name Maf54, appears to describe having been together with the teen in San Diego.

Maf54: I miss you lots since san diego.
Teen: ya I cant wait til dc
Maf54: Smile
Teen: did you pick a night for dinner
Maf54: not yet…but likely Friday
Teen: ok…ill plan for Friday then
Maf54: that will be fun

The messages also show the teen is, at times, uncomfortable with Foley's aggressive approach.

Maf54: I want to see you
Teen: Like I said not til feb…then we will go to dinner
Maf54: and then what happens
Teen: we eat…we drink…who knows…hang out…late into the night
Maf54: and
Teen: I dunno
Maf54: dunno what
Teen: hmmm I have the feeling that you are fishing here…im not sure what I would be comfortable with…well see

Foley resigned Friday after ABC News questioned him about the Internet messages.

He says he has checked into a rehabilitation facility to deal with alcohol and behavioral issues.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 11:51 am
Foley's a cad and deserves his self-engineered fate, even if all he did was talk about it, unlike Gerry Studds.

Some interesting stuff HERE, and more HERE - its beginning to look as though this may not go quite the way some would RATHER ...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:00 pm
Haha, you guys are so predictable.

A problem? Can't go on defense, let's attack attack attack!!!

Pretty soon you'll start talking about the 'will of the electorate,' lol

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:01 pm
snood wrote:
And Ticomaya's reaction? "Well, I think it might not be illegal."


...good grief


Interesting. I'm curious why you didn't point that out as Joe's reaction when he clarified the age of consent laws in D.C.? Too busy jumping to conclusions?

After all, Joe's the one who said sleeping with 16-year olds is "fine," yet you didn't make any special note of his reaction. Yet when I disagreed, because I don't think it's fine, you rush to conclude I am the one deserving of your disdain. It's not fine, it's reprehensible, but because the sodomy laws were repealed in D.C., sleeping with a 16 year-old is probably not a crime.

Foley's a pervert, what he did was reprehensible, and he deserves everything he gets out of this.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:05 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
snood wrote:
And Ticomaya's reaction? "Well, I think it might not be illegal."


...good grief


Interesting. I'm curious why you didn't point that out as Joe's reaction when he clarified the age of consent laws in D.C.? Too busy jumping to conclusions?

After all, Joe's the one who said sleeping with 16-year olds is "fine," yet you didn't make any special note of his reaction. Yet when I disagreed, because I don't think it's fine, you rush to conclude I am the one deserving of your disdain. It's not fine, it's reprehensible, but because the sodomy laws were repealed in D.C., sleeping with a 16 year-old is probably not a crime.

Foley's a pervert, what he did was reprehensible, and he deserves everything he gets out of this.


You're absolutely right - if I was going to say that about your reply, I should have caught Joe's first. My apologies.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:10 pm
snood wrote:
You're absolutely right - if I was going to say that about your reply, I should have caught Joe's first. My apologies.


Accepted, of course. Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:11 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Foley's a cad and deserves his self-engineered fate, even if all he did was talk about it, unlike Gerry Studds.

Some interesting stuff HERE, and more HERE - its beginning to look as though this may not go quite the way some would RATHER ...


Your point being that how the story broke somehow undercuts its impact?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:14 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Haha, you guys are so predictable.

A problem? Can't go on defense, let's attack attack attack!!!

Pretty soon you'll start talking about the 'will of the electorate,' lol

Cycloptichorn

No one's trying to excuse Foley or minimize his misconduct, Cyc - what he did deserves all the disgust and censure it generating. I suspect, however, more will come of this than what Foley did, and I suspect what comes will not please those who's life focus is the inconvenience of the Bush Administration.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:17 pm
Dartagnan wrote:

Your point being that how the story broke somehow undercuts its impact?

No, my point is there's very possibly more to the story and its origins than those currently delighted to see it will wish for there to have been.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:21 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Haha, you guys are so predictable.

A problem? Can't go on defense, let's attack attack attack!!!

Pretty soon you'll start talking about the 'will of the electorate,' lol

Cycloptichorn

No one's trying to excuse Foley or minimize his misconduct, Cyc - what he did deserves all the disgust and censure it generating.


Sure, you're right, noone is defending Foley. Who they are defending is Hastert and other House leadership who knew about it. The process of attempting to minimize any damage has already begun.

Quote:
I suspect, however, more will come of this than what Foley did, and I suspect what comes will not please those who's life focus is the inconvenience of the Bush Administration.


I don't know anyone who has that as their life focus. And this isn't an Administration issue; it is a House issue for the Republican party.

Attacking the media isn't going to get your boys out of hot water on this one; it hits too close to home for many parent voters.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:23 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Dartagnan wrote:

Your point being that how the story broke somehow undercuts its impact?

No, my point is there's very possibly more to the story and its origins than those currently delighted to see it will wish for there to have been.


Hahah, don't bet on your insinuations that the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy cooked this one up together in a secret meeting in the back on an abortion clinic in Des Moines...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:25 pm
engineer wrote:
okie wrote:
...
Let me reinterate one thing clearly. I never defended Foley. My posts have been simply for the purpose of pointing out liberal hypocrisy and a liberal double standard. Morality and corruption should be a non-partisan issue. People that are found to be corrupt should be opposed by both parties in every case, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Once a party is more important than getting rid of corrupt politicians, we are in huge trouble, and that is why Clinton is constantly brought up as a reminder of this failure that needs to be corrected. The hatchet needs to swing both ways, not just as a political weapon to be used selectively whenever you think it might help your own party.


I agree that you did not defend Foley, and I agree with McG that comments about rape of children by Foley are out of line. However, I don't think you can draw a comparison between Clinton's cheating on his wife and Foley soliciting children. Unfortunately, people cheat on their wives and husbands fairly routinely. It's not a crime (assuming it is consensual) and it is so commonplace that we all probably personally know of several cases. I think what Clinton did was reprehensible, both as a betrayal of his wife and because he was in a position of authority. If a CEO engaged in similar activity with an employee, the board should show him the door. That said, Foley is in a whole other league. Using the Internet to IM teenage boys (who might be of the age of consent or not depending on the boy and the state) just isn't the same thing and trying to tie them together is disingenuous.


You guys tend to forget the rape accusations and sexual predator personality of Clinton, as evidenced by preying on an intern barely past teenage status. True, Clinton was never convicted of rape, but Foley has not been convicted of anything either, although he is acting obviously guilty. I contend if Bush did the very same thing as Clinton last week, he would be gone within a month, for two reasons. Bush would have contrition and the press would band with the Democrats to make sure he was gone in no time. It would be abuse of power, dereliction of duty, and every other charge in the book. The Republicans made the mistake of agreeing that there were other issues they were interested in, which is correct that there were many other issues of corruption, but the truth is Monica Lewinsky should have been way more than enough to get the man booted.

I will admit many of us use Clinton as a reference to point out the Democrat's hypocrisy. I agree that abuse of children requires a supreme scumbag, and they should not be in society running around free, let alone in Congress. We have yet to learn all the details about Foley. He is guilty of something, of the total extent we do not yet know. The other question is who knew all of this and when, and how come this is coming out now? The Democrats may have some culpability in this affair as well in the questions just asked.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:27 pm
As I've said to you before, Cyc We shall see, we shall see.



As have we done not infrequently in the past, somewhat to your dismay.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:29 pm
Haha, never to my dismay.

I do agree that the WH and Republicans have done a good job defending themselves from accusations through a series of tricks, counter-attacks and just plain lying and obfuscating facts over the last 5-6 years; you have to give them credit for being good at it. This doesn't, however, mean that they eventually won't get what is coming to them.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:29 pm
timber,

More than one person has pointed out the silliness of your Wikipedia links. Should we go through Wikipedia and compare Republican versus Democrat underage page scandals?

Here is Another Republican
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Oct, 2006 12:31 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
... the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy cooked this one up together in a secret meeting in the back on an abortion clinic in Des Moines


That's very good Laughing - is it original?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.81 seconds on 01/06/2025 at 05:30:55