[Vision2020] Foley Case A Major Political Coverup
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Oct 8 22:56:00 PDT 2006
Ok, I get your point about the secrecy and abuse of power topics. I
agree that this administration has kept us too much in the dark and that
abuse of power is not a good thing.
I see the hypocrisy of trying for the moral high ground and losing it,
but I don't like to blame the whole party for the failings of one
individual, even if that party claims to be better. I wish that the
citizens of this country would vote on the issues and not on how
wholesome they think a candidate is. If more comes out about either
party sitting on the information, then maybe I'll get more upset. From
what I've heard, though, the information that was had early on was more
vague than damning. I haven't been following it that closely though. I
have heard that the information that one of the papers had that they sat
on was not of sufficient interest to warrant a story (at least until
they had more info).
I guess the issue is trivial to me because I don't expect that our
government officials are not humans with common (and uncommon) human
failings. That might not be true for others, especially the religious
right, so I understand why it's important to you to show the truth. I'm
just tired of our country trying to hold our government officials up to
be saints. The real saints are the people you work with on a daily
basis who do good even when it doesn't particularly benefit them.
Paul
Ted Moffett wrote:
> Paul et. al.
>
> I think the Foley case is a focal point that illuminates why many of
> the issues you raise that are so important have not been addressed
> sufficiently in the halls of Congress.
>
> Before making the following points, I would like to repeat the
> political truism that the cover up is often worse than the crime. And
> the implications of the cover up in the Foley case goes far beyond any
> attempts by Foley to hide his behavior, or moral and legal issues of
> the specifics of Foley's behavior.
>
> The evidence is mounting that Hastert, or his office, knew of Foley's
> objectionable conduct as far back as 2003. Either Hastert is woefully
> out of touch, or he knew what Foley was doing and chose to keep
> silent. Other Republicans also knew of Foley's conduct, and also kept
> quiet.
>
> If the Republican party takes advantage of being the party of "moral
> values," meaning in part they support the fundamentalist religious
> view of the immorality of gay behavior, which is an approach they
> certainly have exploited in their courting of the powerful voting
> block of the religious right, I don't think it is trivial or misguided
> to fully examine a case of these moral positions being violated
> substantively by a member of their party, while other party
> members hide this fact. If they are hypocrites, hiding behavior that
> might result in the loss of support of the religious right, this
> deception requires full examination, if for no other reason than to
> inform voters of the truth, to encourage truth in governance.
>
> This case strikes at the heart of one of the primary propaganda tools
> of the Republican party, a tool that has been used to deflect
> attention from the critical issues you insisted are more worth
> discussion. If we cannot dismantle these effective propaganda tools
> used as "weapons of mass distraction," how can government focus on the
> critical issues? Instead we have the US Congress wasting time
> discussing a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, or
> intervening in the Terri Schiavo case... The party of "moral values"
> indeed!
>
> The Foley case is another example of the pattern of secrecy that the
> Bush administration has exhibited on many other issues (need I list
> them?), that are more important, as you point out in your laundry
> list, then one congressman's sexual approaches to minor pages. It is
> the damage of conducting the affairs of government in secrecy that is
> critical here, a pattern in the Bush administration, central to the
> fundamental health of democratic governance.
>
> We are also discussing abuse of power, the arrogance of approaching
> governance as though above accountability, that can spill over into
> many areas of government, which is another concern of many regarding
> how the Bush administration has conducted itself, such as in the abuse
> of executive signing statements by Bush. etc. Perhaps the Republican
> party became a bit too overconfident in their dominant position, and
> thus arrogant to the point of carelessness.
>
> These three fundamental issues, a political party's hypocrisy, secrecy
> and abuse of power in government, far transcend the moral and legal
> issues about sexual approaches or contact between a 16 year old and a
> 52 year old (I don't care whether hetero or homosexual), if this was
> the conduct of an individual leading a totally private life.
>
> However, when politically damaging information is covered up in the
> attempts to deceive voters, during an election, about behavior of a
> member of a political party that would contradict that
> party's message of being the high minded party of "moral values,"
> exploited to win political office, such as in the Bush v. Kerry
> election 2004, we are talking about deception of the whole nation to
> win the presidency.
>
> A trivial issue?
>
> We shall see what develops in the Foley case regarding the evidence.
>
> Ted Moffett
>
>
> On 10/8/06, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com
> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
> Ted,
>
> I don't mean to belittle the issues of a congressman using the
> page system as Foley did for his own personal gratification, or of
> coverups by either party. I guess I'm just getting sick of these
> kinds of power plays.
>
> I know this is not what others believe, but I could for the most
> part care less what sexuality, or level of sexual promiscuity, or
> whatever a congressman has. I put the "for the most part" in
> there because of cases such as this one where a law was broken. I
> didn't care about what Clinton did with Monica Lewinsky or
> cigars. If the page was 18 or older, I wouldn't care much about
> how Foley IMs them either. I'd rather judge them on the job they
> are doing as a government official.
>
> I'd rather we focus on the actual real damage that (I feel) is
> being done to this country. Such as the warrant-less wiretapping,
> Patriot Acts I and II, the new bill that McCain caved on that
> actually states that someone who disagrees with the administration
> can be considered an enemy combatant, the debate over torture and
> our needs as a country to employ it wantonly, the secret prisons,
> the handing off of prisoners to countries we know will torture
> them, the willingness of our telcoms to have the NSA sniff every
> packet on the Internet, the disregarding of intelligence before
> 9/11, the no-bid contracts to make those connected in power
> wealthier, and the complete ignoring of the FISA rules even when
> they are so broad as to be almost meaningless. Did I forget
> anything? Oh yes, the war with Iraq when we knew it had no WMDs.
> Anyway, you get the point.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> The case of former Republican Representative Foley's use of the
>> page system to sexually communicate with minor pages, using his
>> official tax payer supported influence, has implications that
>> are critical to basic democratic principles regarding the conduct
>> of government.
>>
>> As it's been said, the cover up is often worse than the crime,
>> and in this case the Republican cover up, with solid evidence it
>> extends back before the 2004 presidential elections, is a gravely
>> serious violation of the public right to know about the conduct
>> of public officials in government, not only because it allowed
>> Foley to continue this behavior in his official capacity in
>> government, but because the cover up was possibly aimed
>> at deceiving voters in the 2004 election.
>>
>> Foley's misconduct is central to illuminating the truth behind
>> one of the main propaganda tools utilized in the Republican rise
>> to power. The Republican party has made political gains opposing
>> gay rights, with grandstanding measures wasting the time of the
>> US Congress, and the tax payers dollars, with the proposed
>> constitutional amendment (and numerous state measures) to ban gay
>> marriage. It is political and poetic justice that we discover
>> they hid the inappropriate sexually oriented conduct of a gay
>> member of their party in the US Congress, allowing the misconduct
>> to continue, exposing the hypocrisy of their claim to the the
>> party of "moral values," a dominant propaganda tool they have
>> used to exploit public unease with gay rights issues for
>> political advantage.
>>
>> Secrecy and deception have been prominent tactics of the Bush
>> administration on many levels on many issues, violating a central
>> principle of how a democracy must function with transparency in
>> government. This pattern is exposed again in the Foley cover up,
>> and US House Speaker Hastert should be held accountable for
>> complicity in allowing Foley to continue in his powerful taxpayer
>> and voter supported role, without voters being
>> immediately informed of critical ethics violations involving
>> Foley's official duties in government.
>>
>> If it is true that Hastert or other Republicans denied
>> voters critical information regarding Foley's conduct with
>> pages before the 2004 election, this is potentially a case of a
>> cover up to swing the presidency to the Republicans. Exposing
>> Foley's misconduct before the 2004 elections could have inflicted
>> damage to the aforementioned propaganda message of the party of
>> "moral values."
>>
>> The documentation that Hastert, or his office, was informed of
>> Foley's questionable conduct with pages after 2004 is solid,
>> though Hastert says, "he does not remember."
>>
>> I quote a few excerpts below from the news article at this link:
>>
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15063977/
>>
>> **Speaker doesn't remember discussion**
>>
>> Hastert said he does not remember talking to Reynolds about the
>> Foley e-mails, but did not dispute Reynolds' account.
>>
>> "While the speaker does not explicitly recall this conversation,
>> he has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection
>> that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution,"
>> Hastert's aides said in a preliminary report on the matter issued
>> Saturday.
>>
>> ABC News reported Friday that Foley also engaged in a series of
>> sexually explicit instant messages with current and former
>> teenage male pages. In one message, ABC said, Foley wrote to one
>> page: "Do I make you a little horny?"
>>
>> -------------
>>
>> There is documentation that Hastert, and/or his office, and/or
>> other Republicans, were informed of Foley's sexual advances to
>> underage pages before the 2004 election. This evidence supports
>> the assertion of a possible cover up to influence the 2004
>> elections favorably for Republicans.
>>
>> I have pasted in a few excerpts of this news article offering
>> information that Republicans knew of Foley's misconduct before
>> the 2004 elections below this link:
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100400616.html
>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100400616.html>
>>
>> *Ex-Aide to Foley Cites '03 Warnings
>> * By Jonathan Weisman and Charles Babington
>> The Washington Post
>>
>> Thursday 05 October 2006
>>
>> */Former staffer says he alerted Hastert's office./*
>>
>> A longtime chief of staff to disgraced former representative
>> Mark Foley (R-Fla.) approached House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's
>> office three years ago, repeatedly imploring senior Republicans
>> to help stop Foley's advances toward teenage male pages, the
>> staff member said yesterday.
>>
>> The account by Kirk Fordham, who resigned yesterday from his
>> job with another senior lawmaker, pushed back to 2003 or earlier
>> the time when Hastert's staff reportedly became aware of Foley's
>> questionable behavior concerning teenagers working on Capitol Hill.
>>
>> It raised new questions about Hastert's assertions that
>> senior GOP leaders were aware only of "over-friendly" e-mails
>> from 2005 that they say did not raise alarm bells when they came
>> to light this year.
>>
>> Fordham says his warnings to Hastert's office dealt with a
>> different matter: reports of Foley's troubling interest in male
>> pages working in the Capitol Hill complex. He says he implored
>> the highest ranks of the GOP leadership to intervene to thwart
>> behavior that he had been unable to stop after multiple
>> confrontations with his boss. Sources close to the matter say a
>> meeting took place between a senior Hastert aide and Foley before
>> Fordham's January 2004 departure, probably in 2003, in a small
>> conference room on the third floor of the Capitol.
>>
>> -------------------------
>>
>> If the Democrats had solid information about Foley's sexual
>> approaches to pages prior to the 2004 elections, this raises the
>> question why they would not have made it public then to attempt
>> to bring Foley and the Republicans down? The fact the democrats
>> did not expose Foley before the 2004 elections, arguably more
>> critical than the upcoming 2006 elections, suggests they did not
>> know of Foley's ethics violating conduct, or did not have enough
>> documentation to make it stick.
>>
>> Blaming Democrats, or the media, for sitting on the information
>> regarding Foley's misconduct, till weeks before the 2006
>> mid-terms, smacks of the same tactics the Republicans mocked when
>> Hilary Clinton talked of the "vast right wing conspiracy"
>> during the Clinton years. Now we have a vast Democratic/media
>> conspiracy to damage the Republicans. Note that the facts that
>> Foley for years has been using the page system for his sexual
>> advances on minors is so well documented that many Republicans
>> are agreeing this conduct occurred.
>>
>> Shouldn't the Republicans pay a price for covering up Foley's
>> misconduct in this matter, even if the public release of this
>> information was planned to occur by political advantage seeking
>> Democrats, or the media, in the weeks before the 2006 mid-terms?
>> Of course many Republican party supporters would rather have more
>> time to distance themselves from this issue before the
>> mid-terms. But given a cover up by Republicans, this is not a
>> case of Democrats or the media taking the Republicans totally by
>> surprise, even if the public release of the information was
>> opportunistically timed. Republicans were hiding this
>> information, no doubt hoping it would not come out before the
>> mid-terms.
>>
>> If Democrats (or the media) sat on solid documentation regarding
>> Foley's misconduct with pages, waiting for when the information
>> would receive the most exposure, and do the most damage, then it
>> is morally questionable It allowed Foley to continue in his
>> misconduct, with the voters who supported him continuing to have
>> the wool pulled over their eyes.
>>
>> Where is the documentation that the media or any Democrats had
>> solid evidence regarding Foley's misconduct, and hid this
>> information from the public, deliberately waiting to release it
>> before the mid-terms? Is it not possible some of this
>> information was kept hidden, hoping to keep it a "secret" till at
>> least after the 2006 mid-terms, thus rendering it difficult for
>> those looking for politically damaging information to put it all
>> together with enough documentation to go public?
>>
>> This case is more deserving of an independent counsel
>> investigation into Republican complicity in covering up Foley's
>> sexual approaches to pages, than there was in an independent
>> investigation into the Monica Lewinsky case involving
>> Clinton, given the evidence Republicans hid this
>> information, from prior to the 2004 presidential elections up
>> until the information broke publicly recently. Clinton paid a
>> heavy price for his misconduct, but there was no cover up in the
>> Monika Lewinsky case by Democrats that influenced the outcome of
>> a presidential election in their favor. The Monica Lewinsky case
>> was a burden that Al Gore had to overcome in his 2000 contest
>> with Bush, as the Republicans campaigned in part on their claim
>> to the the party of "moral values," compared to the sexual
>> scandal plagued Democratic party represented by Al Gore.
>>
>> Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 10/7/06, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd actually classify myself as an independent right
>> now. The Dem/Rep
>> lines are too close in certain areas and differ too much in
>> some areas I
>> could care less about.
>>
>> It seems to me that the sides are even, if what this article
>> said is
>> true. Dems play their card that they have been sitting on
>> for a while.
>> Reps cut their losses. Why take it any farther?
>>
>> Just to be clear, I condemn the behavior of sitting on
>> something like
>> this because of political motivations. Whether it was
>> democrats waiting
>> for the right time to strike or republicans that were trying
>> to avoid a
>> scandal, I condemn it. Obviously, I also condemn the
>> behavior of trying
>> to come on to underage pages. I just think pushing it
>> farther in the
>> political arena is a waste of resources.
>>
>> Funny that we're talking about trust here when discussing an
>> article
>> that claims to have information on a subject but doesn't actually
>> present it as fact. Trusting innuendo and gossip isn't much
>> better than
>> whatever trusting you are accusing me of. I have a naive
>> wish to go
>> along with my naive ability to trust, though: I wish the
>> people we
>> elected into office would spend 1/10th the amount of time
>> they spend on
>> political maneuvering on actually trying to make this country
>> a better
>> place.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> g. crabtree wrote:
>>
>>> Spoken like a trusting Democrat. I agree about the creepy &
>> stupid
>>> part but, if the DNC or democrat operatives were aware of this
>>> situation months or even years earlier and waited till six
>> weeks out
>>> from the mid terms to spring the nasty news for the
>> advantage it would
>>> bring then I think that that has its own stink of nastiness
>> (if not
>>> criminality) and deserves to be made public.
>>>
>>> gc
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Rumelhart"
>>> <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>
>>> To: "vision2020" < vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>>
>>> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:37 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Scandals
>>>
>>>
>>>> So responding in sexually-explicit ways to an underage
>> staffer is
>>>> somehow ok if it's really a joke that's being played on
>> you? How is
>>>> this an improvement? Now he's both creepy and stupid at
>> the same time.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, he's resigned. That should be the end of it as far
>> as I'm
>>>> concerned, at least from a political standpoint. This
>> arguing about who
>>>> knew what should stop.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> Pat Kraut wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On the front page of the local newspaper tonight there is
>> talk of
>>>>> scandals...but what scandal?
>>>>> This is from a blog and makes me question who started this
>> and what
>>>>> and when
>>>>> did they know??
>>>>> Foleys a slime, no question but what is the rest of the
>> story??
>>>>> Dirty tricks
>>>>> to change the election?? I think dems should be put under
>> oath also.
>>>>>
>>>>> After the Frenzy
>>>>> 10/05 03:13 PM
>>>>> This is why it pays to wait and get more facts before
>> joining the
>>>>> chorus of
>>>>> pundits and operatives demanding resignations. I will
>> revisit this
>>>>> later.
>>>>> XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX
>>>>>
>>>>> 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...
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>>>>> mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>>>> mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>> mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
> =======================================================
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20061008/fc4d55e0/attachment-0001.htm
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list