Sunday, October 01, 2006

Mr. Foley, You Are a Brainless Man

I enjoy how lines form plays become impeded in my mind after listening to them hundreds of times in rehearsal and performance. Some favorites: “You can’t handle the truth” “I shall call it Bottom’s dream, because it has no bottom.” “I do not think about things, I do not think about.” “Do you ever think about things you do think about?”

Now I am listening to *The Crucible*, beginning to end, once ever two days. In the play; as the Witch Trials come crashing down around Judge Danforth’s ears, the Reverend Parris revels that his niece; the leading accuser of the twelve “witches” already hung, and the seven scheduled to die at sunrise; has stolen Parris' money and fled. The Judges reaction is to scream: “Mr. Parris, you are a brainless man!” By the way, so was Judge Danforth.

Now who will prove to be brainless?

If Mark Foley has sexually abused young men; his crimes need to be uncovered and he needs to be punished. If his crimes do not go past the e-mails and text messages at present disclosed then the least we can say is: “Mark Foley, you are a brainless man!”

I have cut and pasted the “sexually explicit” text messages and e-mails that the Congressman is know to have sent to a High School aged boy who had worked for him:

ABCNews.com posted these instant message exchanges:

Maf54: You in your boxers, too?
Teen: Nope, just got home. I had a college interview that went late.
Maf54: Well, strip down and get relaxed.

ABCNews.com also cited this exchange:

Maf54: What ya wearing?
Teen: tshirt and shorts
Maf54: Love to slip them off of you.

A third example from ABCNews.com:

Maf54: Do I make you a little horny?
Teen: A little.
Maf54: Cool.

Some excerpts from the email.

glad your home safe and sound...we dont go back into sessionuntil Sept 5,,,,si its a nice long break...I am back in Florida now...its nice here..been raining today...it sounds like you will have some fun over the next few weeks...how old are you now?...

I am in North Carolina..and its over 100 degrees in New Orleans...wow that's really hot...well do you miss DC...Its raining here but 68 degrees so you can argue..did you have fun at your conference....what do you want for your birthday coming up...what stuff do you like to do

how are you weathering the hurricane...are you safe...send me an email pic of you as well....

The teen boy is 16 years-old.”


"Click on the blue "16 years-old" above and get the "full" story.

We can all now judge the inappropriateness of these comments and the level of “evil” they represent. Now let’s sit back and watch what their effect will be on the nation.

1. Will the Congressman resign or will he cling to his office no matter what shocking information is reveled? (We already know the answer to this question, but it’s still worth asking.)

2. When he is accused of criminal activity will he lie to a grand jury?

3. When brought before a federal judge will he perjure himself?

4. Will the media unite to attack or to defend him? Will they attack him as a sexual predator or tell us that there is nothing really to get up set about because it’s “just sex.”? (Of course there will have to be some actual sex reveled before this defense can be made. Will it matter if the boy kept the “blue dress”?)

5. Will Foley call a news conference and shake his finger at America and tell us he did not have “text” with that boy!

6. Once he has denied his e-mails will he require his staff to march one at a time to the microphone and say, “I believe the congressman”?

7. What will the ACLU do about the leaking of private e-mails to the press?

8. Will this boy’s name be leaked to the press, and will pictures of him be published in the “Enquirer”?

9. Will he be called a trailer trash bimbo and attacked by the “party” machine?

10. Will those who have long condemned the sexual exploitation of women, (oh, excuse me I meant boys,) in the work place; suddenly abandon their cause because Mark Foley is a supporter of their "special issue"?

11. Will Foley’s wife uncover a vast right wing conspiracy? (Okay, I know Foley doesn’t have a wife; maybe he could get some help from Hillary.)


This scandal may well change the history of he world, it may well place the party of “Cut and Run”, or now, “not stay the course but change the course, but we don’t know how”, in power and precipitate the eventual fall of the West?


“Mr. Foley, you are a brainless man.” Who else will prove to be brainless?

129 comments:

MindMechanic said...

Lysis...

NOT a defense of Foley. I believe a complete investigation will be done. I hope whatever justice is, that it will be done.

I keep hearing there are more graphic emails and accounts. I hope there is more to justify this tempest than those currently seen in the teapot. Which is not to say this isnt wrong and again...whatever justice is...

As I understand it, this story was reported to law enforcement officials a year ago. The law enforcement representatives suggested this was inappropriate but not illegal. The boys parents asked that it end.

This will of course become a political issue.

Now, when Democrat Gerry Studds was caught in an actual sexual relationship with a 16 year old page no democrats called for his resignation, ouster, and ultimately, his constituents re-elected him. When Barney Franks is found to have a male prostitute living in his government funded quarters and in fact running tricks from his apartment, no repercussions were to be seen and today he is still a member of congress. William Jefferson is caught cold (money was in the freezer) and red handed asking for and recieving bribes, yet he still serves as a democrat representative. Ted Keneddy's exploits...well...no sense beating a drunken dead horse. And for a fun accounting of Mr Clintons exploits I invite you to read my article in Historical Perspectives. http://historicalperspective.blogspot.com/

Now...contrast the republican responses to scandal. Senator Bob Packwood didnt retire to a treatment center and demand forgiveness for his behaviors since they were a part of his 'illness' ala Patrick Kennedy, he resigned. Recently, Congressman Duke Cunningham immediately resigned instead of vowing to fight it (ala Mr JEfferson). And Mr Foley resigned immediately in disgrace.

Of course...democrats wll say it was all known by republicans and call it a cover up (how is it a cover up when it is reported immediately to law enforcement?). They say it shows a lack of morals.

Well now...wait a minute. If this guy was a democrat wouldnt he just announce his homosexuality and beg for understanding and blame his parents (ala fmr New Jersy governor McGreevey)?

Again. Not a defense. Let the law take whatever action is appropriate. I dont call for Foleys crucifixion, just justice.

I wonder how long before Oprah calls and offers her couch for a public therapy session of a poor woebegotten man that has battled against his homosexuality due to the religous perspecutions of conservatives which led him to these actions?

Anonymous said...

Oprah won't ever offer her couch to Rep. Foley, and the media will villify him as a child predator, because the boys were boys under the age of 18. You can argue whether this is right or wrong, but whereas homosexuality is simply homosexuality, this involves minors, and that is an issue that is easy to get behind right now.

The question of interst from Lysis' post is how will the ACLU react given that they represent and side with NAMBLA.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...I am in no way defending anyone. My point is that underage pages have been targeted by congressmen in the past and those congressmen were not only NOT punished they were rewarded with re-election.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Mindmechanic:

Thanks for the depth your comments offer. I don’t think anyone will misinterpret your questions as any kind of defense of Foley. They are worth considering as we judge the acts of those who will now attack the Republican Party for Foley’s folly.

Anonymous:

I’m afraid we will all wait a long time before the ACLU comes to the aid of any Republican Congressman.


I would like to go on record here that Bill Clinton’s crime was not his exploitation of Monaca Lewinski; it was the sexual harassment of Paula Jones. His lies about Monaca only came later, as he tried to deny he had a history of demanding sex form the women who worked for him. There will be plenty that will try to just exposé the “text” messaging of Foley with the Oval Office exploitation of Lewinski and then claim that Lewinsky was “of age” and a consenting adult. But, although Paula Jones was of age she was not a consenting adult, and Clinton’s sexual harassment of Jones, which involved dropping his pace and asking for favors, is what needs to be compared with Foley’s dirty talk.

MindMechanic said...

This is in no way the same thing...BUT Bill Clinton was fond of citing the statistic that "13 children a day die from gun violence." That statistic was gleaned by defining a 'child' anyone between the age of 0-25. So...by his own reckoning Monica was in fact a child.

I agree BTW..>Monica Lewinsky was the best thing that could have happened to Bill CLinton. They trashed her, blamed everyone else, and then said it was all just about consensual sex. Well...no. It was about
-Bill exposing himself to a campaign staffer (who did NOT take him up on his generous offer to let her "kiss it").

-The rape of Juanita Broderick.

-The molesting of Kathleen Wiley on the day of her husbands funeral.

and more despicably the trashing of any women that were revealed as being involved with him.

The Lewinsky trial shifted the focus entirely.

fed up said...

Lysis and Mind Mechanic can toss around Bill Clinton's folies all day and all of next week. It still means NOTHING in determining Foley's guilt or innocense.

Don't get yourself worked up telling us again Mind Mechanic that you are not excusing Foley. Got it. However, if you are trying to suggest a double standard then do a better job. Beating the dead of horse of what a pig Clinton is doesn't make any difference in this case.

Lysis said...

Fed Up:

Whoa, welcome to the Agora. You seem to get off on telling people what they can and cannot say. (Don't get yourself worked up telling us again Mind Mechanic that you are not excusing Foley.) You are of course welcome to say what you want here at the Agora, but don’t expect anyone to take your direction.

No one here is defending Foley; perhaps you were so eager to deny the truth, that there is a double standard in play, that you forgot to read the title of the Post. "Mr. Foley, You Are a Brainless Man"

It was my hope that we would soon see those so eager to attack the Republican Party that they would be willing to ignore the double standard and start flinging aspersions. Thank you for providing such a “remarkable” example right here at the Agora.

I do agree with you on your description of Bill Clinton as well.

MindMechanic said...

Hello fed up...good to hear another voice.

No...the comparison of Clinton and all the rest does not excuse Foley. Thats not the point. The point is there is a distinct difference between typical republican response to slimey politicians and democrat responses.

I would not make an issue of it at ALL if the liberals centered their attacks on Foley. They havent and wont. They have already attempted to paint the whole of the republican party with the same brush.

truth to power said...

To be fair, this is what political parties do, "attempt to paint the whole of the [opposing] party with the same brush." The Republicans certainly did it to the Democrats when Clinton was caught. Of course, it didn't help the Democrats that they were defending his scumminess instead of distancing themselves from it.

I would hope that Republicans and Democrats alike would condemn Foley's scumminess without trying to score any political points from it. Of course, I would hope a lot of things. I know what I can realistically expect.

Strategos said...

I lived in Brazil for a while and it was always interesting for me to talk the them about American politics. Few of them realize that our countries parties are so divided, and defending one parties actions by sighting the faults of another never works for them.

MindMechanic said...

Truth-

"The Republicans certainly did it to the Democrats when Clinton was caught. Of course, it didn't help the Democrats that they were defending his scumminess instead of distancing themselves from it."

I dont recall the republicans tring to paint the democrats as sleazy- just condemning the blind defense of Clinton. Now...if republicans do this with Foley...well...off with their heads.

Strategos-
"defending one parties actions by sighting the faults of another never works for them"

I had many a discussion with arabs from all around the middle east and the typical comment is we love America and repsect America and its people. We just dont understand the actions of your government. MY typical response to that was "welcome to America...we usually dont understand the government either!"

I dont think this is a defense of Foley or the republicans. My attack against the listed democrats (and there are LOTS more we could cite) only comes out to point out the hypocracy of the left. When Clinton's scandals became more public (and I say MORE because most of the things...the adultery, the drug deals, pardoning the biggest drug dealer in Arkansas history then being photographed with him in his house two weeks later..all were known beofe the first election) I dont recall anyone blaming the democrats for his behaviors. I do recall a long lineup of liberals excusing and justifying his behaviors. I think that to me is the difference.

People are already attacking Hassert saying he knew and covered it up only to protect a house seat. What we know so far is that when the information was first learned (which as I understand it was in 2003) it was turned over to law enforcement. That they decided it was not actionable is THEIR decision, not that of the republican speaker or anyone else in the republican party.

The person oveseeing the page program was notified and he allegedly warned all the pages about Foley. Its not as if this was an under the rug secret.

I have seen a transcript of an instant message conversation he had with another page. Yes...its disgusting and worn and reprehensible, yet I have not seen a direct overt sexual exchange or a request for it or a request for a meeting for sex, cyber or otherwise. So while it is disgusting, unless there is more that we STILL havent seen, then it isnt criminal. BUT that may still change and if it does then off with HIS head.

I do see today where he has claimed alcoholism and is checking into a rehab center. I think that is a cheap ploy and a dodge. But it will be interesting to see if Ted or Patrick now step forward to defend his actions in light of his 'addiction.'

Lysis said...

Mindmechanic:

I agree with you that the response and the attacks on the Republican Party as a whole will be over blown, and that people who have no connection to Foley will suffer. If Hastert and others knew and covered up, they did wrong as well. What will be sad is if the American people punish such wrong doing by voting themselves into danger in the world.

Truth to Power:

Let’s hope all the folks who should have acted have acted as they should. If not they are also stupid and will pay the price.

Strategos:

Considering what I’ve heard “does work” in Brazil, I can’t help but wonder that the advantages of our adversarial system might outweigh the flaws.

Anonymous said...

To all you moralizing hypocrites out there “At the Agora” answer me these:–

First - Why is it wrong for an old man to talk about sex to a 17 year old boy and legal for the same old man to have sex with the same kid as soon as he turns 18?

Second - Why is it wrong for an old man to talk about sex to a 16 year old boy when the only thing 16 year old boys talk about is sex.

Number three - Why is it acceptable, even profitable, for an old woman (Paris Hilton) to make a music video about arousing a teenage boy; rubbing her hands all over him for the world to see; but death to a congressman’s career to talk to a teenage boy about being aroused?

truth to power said...

In strictly moral terms, everything you mentioned is wrong. But there is also a legal issue here. Each jurisdiction has a legal age of consent. These laws protect both children and adults--can you imagine a case-by-case legal standard?

Foley knew the law.

truth to power said...

I just realized my response missed the sexual harassment aspect of this situation. It still wouldn't be even legally OK if the pages in question were of the age of consent. How, in this day and age, could a congressman not know what legal danger he was putting himself in by engaging in sexual communications with subordinates, whether of the age of consent or not? Brainless, indeed.

MindMechanic said...

"To all you moralizing hypocrites out there “At the Agora” answer me these:–"

Not being one of those...I'll still try to answer...

First - Why is it wrong for an old man to talk about sex to a 17 year old boy and legal for the same old man to have sex with the same kid as soon as he turns 18?

1-Because the age of consent is 18. Prior to the age of 18 it is against the law of the land today.
It matters not that the boy was 16 or 17...if he is under 18 what he is doing is against the law.

I often discuss this with youth that i work with. There is a natural conflict with young adults and their parents and part of that is due to the changing societal roles. Less than 100 years ago it was not uncommon and in fact was the norm for people as young as 13, to already be married. 16 year old men were fathers and building and running their own farms.

But it isnt 100 years ago...it is today, and today, the laws as passed by the congress that Foley represented state the age of consent as being 18.

It should be noted in some states it is different.

Now...hypocracy would be Foley fighting against this very type of behavior while ENGAGING in this type of behavior.

"Second - Why is it wrong for an old man to talk about sex to a 16 year old boy when the only thing 16 year old boys talk about is sex."

2-I guess it is because society has decided that it is not just a possibility but rather a PROBABILITY that old men will exploit young men, sort of like what has happened in the days of the Romans and Greeks.

You want an example of the difference of maturity level? check out the 16 year old's description of the convesation.

Number three - Why is it acceptable, even profitable, for an old woman (Paris Hilton) to make a music video about arousing a teenage boy; rubbing her hands all over him for the world to see; but death to a congressman’s career to talk to a teenage boy about being aroused?

3-Theoretically we SHOULD be able to hold legislators to a higher standard than Paris Hilton. I dont know of the video you speak about but it isnt all that hard to imagine.

Still the difference here is the image or impression of fantasy as expressed in video's vs the reality of action as perpetrated by the congressman.

It is not illegal to fantasize or even dramatize certain behaviors (rape, child abuse, etc) but it IS against the law to act on those behaviors.

Lysis said...

Anonymous:

Good questions, thanks for asking them.

Truth to Power:

On first blush I agree with you that “in strictly moral terms, everything you [anonymous] mentioned is wrong.” I don’t want to be putting words in our new Anonymous’ mouth but perhaps what he is asking is why are these things wrong. Are they self evidently wrong? Are they wrong because in some States there is a legal issue? Are they not wrong in other States?

By the way – age is a defense if your “crime” is against a woman, and you are a Democrat President who supports abortion.

Mindmechanic;

I think your answers also fall short of what I, if not Anonymous, would like to hear. How did society come to draw the line for the age of consent, and why do we draw a different one for different places and in different times. I wonder if there is some absolute and reasonable way of defining this line. We did it with slavery; we have failed to do it with the beginning of human life. Maybe we ought to practice drawing lines.

You are dead on as far as Foley being a hypocrite. I heard him in an interview describing the very activities he seems to have engaged in and the warning parents against such “predators”. I understand he made laws against the very things he was doing. I would like to read those laws – and see how he violated them.

I am rather fond of the Greeks and the Romans, though not all the things they did. Slavery, human sacrifice, and gladiatorial killing for amusement, seem to me to be particularly problematic. Yet we do not suddenly have a birthday and then find owning slaves of slitting throats has become acceptable. Perhaps sex is never acceptable either, but that is surly not the line we have drawn.

I’ve seen some of the P. Hilton video on Fox News. I must admit that it did seem to show acceptance of the very exploitation of youth that we seem so eager to condemn as a universal wrong. In the discussion group afterwards the “industry” man’s only answer was that people buy what they like. That seems like a dangerous line to draw.

On the Hilton/Foley comparison - I would argue that it is NOT JUST congressmen that should obtain from harassing employees or seducing children.

I also want to know if Foley’s folly went beyond fantasy. If the evil of texting pages is exploitation of young men, did he exploit?

MindMechanic said...

"How did society come to draw the line for the age of consent, and why do we draw a different one for different places and in different times."

Actually I agree that this a very good question. I understand history somewhat but have never seen it addressed...I wonder if this was a reaction to the advent of child labor laws that the government instituted to protect child exploitation in the workplace.

My answer was probably overly simplistic (weird, huh?). To me it is the same answer that I can give regarding legal use of alcohol vs illegal use of marijuana, medicinal or otherwise. The difference is that one is against the law and the other is not.

I think there HAS to be a standard and society as a whole defines it. If we move the age of consent to 16 how long before it is 14? Ive read that NAMBLA and others want the age lowered to 8 and some say there should be no age of consent at all.

In England the age of consent is 14, but I think the intent is that two consenting 14 year olds within a few years of each other are the expected coupling, not a 54 year old man and 16 year old boy or girl. There can be no reason I can see for two people with that dramatic an age difference except for exploitation. While I accept that there might be exceptions, I am afraid that the abuse would be the rule.

MindMechanic said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
a quiet listener said...

as i woke up and drove to school all i heard on the radio was how the GOP must have been covering this all up for months. i personally am more upset with whoever had the emails and i.m.'s.

i know up at camp if we hear about a child being sexually abused we become an accomplice if we don't report it.

i'm more upset with the fact that somebody held this information back and let these pages be "molested" if that's what it turns out to be. why? just becuase they knew that by waiting long enough foley's name would be locked onto the ballot and it would be close enough to an election to try and pick up a seat.

Strategos said...

Lysis
“Considering what I’ve heard “does work” in Brazil, I can’t help but wonder that the advantages of our adversarial system might outweigh the flaws.”


I was not trying to compare Brazil's political system with the U.S.'s. Brazil’s political system is more adversarial than the U.S.’s I was just trying to show how damaging we can be to ourselves. If Democrats call George Bush a liar and Republican's respond with Clinton's a liar, all people in the international community hear is “American Presidents are liars.” International politics are increasingly important, the “we are the richest so we’re the best,” attitude is not going to work. Similarly internal conflict will not advance the agenda of either party. We can see how our enemies have used our adversarial system to create mistrust around the world and at home. The Jihadists will use any attack on American competence to further their cause. Whether that be Democrat attacks on George Bush, or Mike Wallace attacking Bill Clinton.

To an international onlooker, republicans aren’t painting democrats we are just painting ourselves. Look at world powers that have risen and fallen throughout History, don’t we see a pattern of success, followed by conceit, followed by internal power struggle, followed by collapse?

truth to power said...

I subscribe to the old-fashioned idea that explicitly sexual overtures (including merely verbal ones) made outside of marriage are immoral. And yes, there are many actions that are both morally wrong and legally permitted. I'm convinced it's a mistake to try to get laws banning all bad behavior.

I condemn Foley's actions on moral grounds, but it's really a brainless move to get himself into such legal and political hot water as well. I also condemn anybody who let this go on or covered it up for political purposes. I reacted similarly to Bubba and his accomplices.

I guess a "moralizing hypocrite" must be the sort of person who thinks this would be okay if the kid were 18, or that what Paris Hilton does is acceptable. So then I'm not one of those.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: that different individuals reach the needed level of maturity to be morally responsible for sexual behavior at different chronological ages. I don't see how any legal line we can draw could safely and justly account for this. But we must draw some line; it can't be legal to have sex with babies. The age-of-consent laws seem to be a workable solution. At least they provide an objective standard. That's important to protect not only the children, but also the (wicked but not necessarily criminal) adults.

It makes sense for the age of consent to be set higher now than in generations past. Among other significant societal changes, we have a longer modern life expectancy, and young people spend a much longer period of time as de facto dependents. I'm sure that moral/mental maturity comes later to the average adolescent than it did a century ago.

MindMechanic said...

Quiet Listener

"i'm more upset with the fact that somebody held this information back and let these pages be "molested" if that's what it turns out to be"

This is the hype and rhetoric that I was talking about.

All indications (and evidence proves it) are that when this became an issue (in November of 2005) the information was turned over to the media (there is a copy of the information at the Tampa Herald) and to the police as well as the disciplinary committee.

The police stated that while this was ugly, it was not illegal. Congressman Foley was addressed and ordered to cease contact with the 16 year old page. His parents were satisfied and requested that it end.

Now...how is that a cover up? The media was notified. The police were notified. The congressman overseeing the page program was notified and notified the pages.

Anonymous said...

Shocked By Your Rationalizing says:

"After a day of shuttling children to and from hockey practice and the pediatrician, I settled in front of the television just in time to see White House Press Secretary Tony Snow refer to former Congressman Mark Foley's alleged troubles as "simply naughty e-mails." In fact, Snow went as far to say "Look, I hate to tell you, but it's not always pretty up there on Capitol Hill and there have been other scandals as you know that have been more than simply naughty e-mails."

I hear Snow is now backing off those remarks, but as the face and voice of the administration, his job is to avoid mistakes of this nature. Simply put, Snow should lose his job for that remark. As an outraged mother, I'll be happy to lead the charge. How, in the same breathe, DARE he talk of protecting "these kids" but dismiss pedophilia as "naughty e-mails."

A congressman allegedly asking a child to measure his penis is just a "naughty e-mail?" A congressman allegedly asking a child if he masturbated today is just a "naughty email?"

Tell ya what, Tony. Let's let Mr. Foley have a go at your kids. I'm sure they are Internet savvy and drop by your place of work occasionally. We'll let your kids and the former Congressman exchange some IM's and then you can tell me all about that silly Mark Foley and his wacky naughty messages to your kids. I'm sure it will be a real hoot around your dinner table.

These were not just "naughty e-mails," Mr. Snow. These were sexually charged propositions and conversations with CHILDREN. Let me say that again, Mr. Snow and Agorites...CHILDREN.

Yeah, keep backing off those remarks Tony, because you sounded like a dope. Let's get to why you REALLY said what you said. Because you wanted to bring up the ghost of THAT woman and THAT blue dress. The "other scandals" Snow and you all are not so subtly referring too is a certain Ms. Lewinsky and a certain President.

Apparently there is some new law that prevents any Republican discussing any sort of sexual matter without bringing up President Bill Clinton and his CONSENTUAL (all be it incredibly stupid) oral sex with "THAT woman." Just to review, that scandal, the one that involved two consenting ADULTS- that one cost this country MILLIONS of dollars.

By my mother calculations...Foley's investigation, prosecution, etc. should cost this country at least triple. I mean...we're talking about kids here. We're talking about protecting our kids, right? If you spent millions on the Lewinsky/Clinton affair, surely you'll spend millions MORE on something involving participants that are UNDER age. Because I know, in my heart, you moral Republicans will take care of my family, right? You'll make sure that MY family and this country's children are taken care of...at least more than some consenting tryst between adults, right? You've certainly been protecting my family and me like crazy against that gay marriage thing. Lord knows if the gays marry, my family will fall apart. So certainly, you'll protect my wee little offspring from predator Congressmen with a knack for inappropriate behavior around pages, right?

Of course you will, because Jesus would. I mean, Jesus liked kids, didn't he? I know he wasn't real big on the adultery thing, but that can't possibly compare to the safety and well being of our children. We wouldn't want the world to think we cared more about consenting adults than helpless, defenseless, children...now do we?

Oh wait...that's right, this administration doesn't give a flip what the world thinks.

Well, this mother does. And she's going to protect her kids. It's time for the White House to put politics aside, including it's Snow Spin and take care of our children. Protect our children.

As for your, Mr. Snow, choose your words carefully. These are my kids you're protecting. These are America's children working as pages. Dismiss the "naughty e-mails" in their inboxes and answer to the MOTHERS of America. You don't want that, Mr. Snow.

Trust me."

truth to power said...

Time and money was spent on investigating, impeaching, and prosecuting Clinton not for sexually harassing Monica Lewinsky, but for perjuring himself when another of his numerous victims sued. I attacked him for his moral and legal transgressions then. I attack Foley today.

Of course, Clinton could have saved us all a large amount of that trouble by resigning. Then his would have been an ordinary perjury indictment and prosecution, instead of the impeachment and Senate trial he chose. Foley has already resigned, so there's no need for a corresponding action to get him removed from office. I suspect, however, that there is legal action still to come.

If we gave a flip what the world thinks, this would all be quickly forgotten. The enlightened, progressive internationalists of Europe and their kind laugh at our age of consent laws.

Lysis said...

Truth to Power:

You have the above exactly right. I can’t find anyone on this string that has not condemned Foley. I would only add that Clinton was not being investigating for having “consensual” sex as our angry Anonymous implies. He was being questioned about sexually harassing Paula Jones. Questions that were only able to be asked him after he appealed his executive privilege all the way to the Supreme Court. Talk about a waste of money.

Shocked By Your Rationalizing:

Please give an example of anyone “Rationalizing” about Foley. I hear some rationalizing in your post about Clinton.

Apparently there is some new law that prevents any Republican discussing any sort of sexual matter without bringing up President Bill Clinton and his CONSENTUAL (all be it incredibly stupid) oral sex with "THAT woman." Just to review, that scandal, the one that involved two consenting ADULTS- that one cost this country MILLIONS of dollars.

Please understand that it was not Clinton’s actions with Monika that up sets those who love American justice and the integrity of our judicial system and the office of the President. It is the fact that Clinton broke the law by harassing Paula Jones and then lied about Monica to cover his trail.

It is a typical Democrat talking point defense of Clinton to claim that it was all about consensual sex with Lewinsky. Do you think that Paula’s mother has any less right to be enraged about Bill Clinton dropping his pants and asking her daughter to pleasure him than you should be by an abhorrent text message to your son?

You are no more angry at pedophiles than the rest of us, consider that before you attack “some one” who has obviously not posted at the Agora. Our indignation is that folks like you seem willing to minimize even trivialize sexual harassment and abuse when it comes from a Democrat, and now scream bloody murder when it comes from a Republican. The thing we need to hear is consistent indignation about evil. And we need to think together as a nation about what is evil is.

Strategos:

I agree with you. Americans are destroying their international reputation in an attempt to gain political power here at home. Your point is extremely well taken. We not only damage our reputation, such political hara-kiri is giving aid and comfort to our enemies and setting the stage for the fall of al we all hole most dear. Let’s wise up and work together. You win this one as far as I am concerned.

A Quiet Listener:

I appreciate Mindmechanic points. I don’t think there was a cover up. I think there is a great desire on the part of the Democrats to make it appear there was one. IF there was, perhaps the Republicans have lost the “Mandate of Heaven”. God help us then, for the Democrats have already demonstrated that they are unwilling and incapable of picking it up.

MindMechanic said...

Shocked By Your Rationalizing...

Never. Not once. Ive never rationalized Foleys behaviors. Not once. I've yet to see anyone here do it either.

I believe that if you look at how this all unfolded, the emails were the first to come out. Law enforcement officials said the emails were ugly but not criminal.

Then, within a day, we were informed that there was more. And I dont believe ANYONE has defended what came next. No one has defended foley and certainly, no one has excused Foley in light of the Instant Messages that were revealed.

Oh...but you make some VERY wrong assumptions when you jump to the conclusion that the Republicans (or Democrats or ANY government entity) will protect your family. And shame on you and anyone else that makes that assumption. YOU are responsible for your family.

You also make a mistake assuming everyone here blindly defends any party. If you have read any of my past postings you might know (as I discuss pretty openly in my blog) that I was until just a few years ago a Libertarian. I still dont think there is a dimes difference between the two parties. Individuals...sure...but not the parties.

As to MY OWN (and I'll only speak for myself) use of past dem scandals...I bring them up for one reason. The SECOND that liberals give as much attention to democrat scandals as they do republican scandals I will stop mentioning. But they dont. They never have.

Line after line, scandal after scandal dems excuse, justify or pretend its just sex between two consenting adults (which you just did again). Its not 'just sex...its rape, its sexual assault, its indecent exposure, its sexual harassment, and oh yeah...its also adultery. Its trashing women in defense of the criminals. Nancy Pelosi never said a WORD aout the dem scandals but without even knowing what exactly has transpired she is already claiming a cover up. THATS hypocracy and THATS why I bring it up and why I always will until the liberals show a little bit of that integrity and stop that hypocracy that they are so quick to talk about.

MindMechanic said...

I hope they will do their job and stop letting the media continue to distort this.

We have been told this has been known for years and that the pages were warned. Apparently that word came from ONE page who has since withdrawn his comment.

I say what I have said all along...let justice be done. Let the investigations commence. Woe be unto anyone...ANYONE...if they covered things up. I just have yet to see how that has happened.

Loraditch's Facebook.com statement said: "I have received several heated responses from my fellow pages about media involvement in the current situation. I want to respond with a few points and thoughts.

"Firstly, as to the ABC "Warned" story, while I may have inadvertently used the word, "warned," in communication, I can assure you it was not intended. The fact of the matter is in an informal situation a supervisor mentioned that Foley was a bit odd or flaky and did not connote by tone or otherwise that he should be avoided.

"Secondly as to talking out in general, . . . I don't think anyone can argue that protecting kids, pages, or whomever from sexual predators is anything but the most important of this whole saga. Nothing comes in front of the safety of the page program, not the page program, a member of congress, no one.

"Thirdly, I have stressed several key points in my contact with media that all situations with Mr. Foley occurred after we had finished our service as pages. That if anything had happed while we were in Washington, it would have been dealt with. That I have full faith and trust that any of the supervisors and staff we worked with would have properly dealt with any situation like the current one. That the page program is one of the most wonderful and educational experiences a youth can have.

"Fourthly, although not all of you know people who have had these horrible conversation with Foley, I do. And frankly that gives me all the more reason to speak out. . . .

"Finally, if i have hurt or offended anyone, I am sorry. And I love my page friends and I cherish my relationships with the page program staff, however fracture some of this may have made them. I want you all to know that I truly believe that I'm doing the best that I can do."

The other page said most pages are angry at Loraditch's comments and that the page program did its best to ensure the safety of pages, with strict rules and curfews.

MindMechanic said...

"Republican Leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley's abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust," said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Republican Leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath."

Fact...When Massachusets Democrat Gerry Studds was outed as having an an affair with an underage page no democrat called for his ouster and in fact he was re-elected several times. All I am saying is if you are this disgusted by emails Ms Pelosi and ANY OTHER liberal, then where was your outrage when a democrat senator was engaged in actual SEX with a minor page???

"The FBI has begun an inquiry into Foley's computer contact with pages, and Hastert wrote a letter to Florida Gov. Jeb Bush asking for an investigation into whether state laws were broken."

"Meanwhile, Florida newspapers — who were leaked copies of the e-mail with the Louisiana boy last year — defended their decision not to run stories. Both The St. Petersburg Times and The Miami Herald were given copies of the e-mail, as were other news organizations, including Fox News."

"Our decision at the time was ... that because the language was not sexually explicit and was subject to interpretation, from innocuous to 'sick,' as the page characterized it, to be cautious," said Tom Fiedler, executive editor of the Herald. "Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay, and lacking any corroborating information, we chose not to do a story."

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Last night as I discussed goings on here in the Agora with a friend, something about the anonymous poster, “Shocked By Your Rationalizing” started to stink. In “Talk Radio” there are what are called “seminar callers”. I have heard Rush Limbaugh refer them. It seems these are people how take a talking points seminar, probably by correspondence course, and are trained to call and asked canned questions that spin and preach. As my friend and I talked last night, we began to recognize “Shocked” as a seminar blogger. This is a kind of bug that crawls through the blogosphere and attaches its self to pertinent topics under discussion in order to dissimilate and preach. I recognize in “Shocked’s” post a bug crawling about the blogosphere masquerading as an irate mother, just as two Sundays ago we saw a bug crawl onto “Fox News Sunday” and pretend to be an irate former president. All the tell tale signs of Clinton’s staged blow up on TV are to be found in “Shocked’s” post.

The first line is so laughable – “After a day shuttling children to and from hockey practice and the pediatrician.” Come on, give me a break, I’m quite sure Shocked is a prep school politico with a taste of hockey and dreams of being a pediatrician. I’ll bet “Shocked” is a “he” not a “she”, and was disappointed to be turned down as a Congressional Page when he was 16.

The attack on Snow is a dead giveaway. Like Clinton’s meaningless statement – “I’m asked this question on Fox News.” What was that supposed to mean? “I never get asked real questions on Tim Russet or by my buddy Mathews?” It was an appeal to the left’s hate for the one news network that continually tells the truth about them. Now “Shocked’s” seminar blog tries to tar the White House Press Secretary by implying that calling “naughty e-mails”, “naughty e-mails” is some how dismissing pedophilia.

“Shocked” next concocts a claim: “A congressman allegedly asking a child to measure his penis is just a "naughty e-mail?" A congressman allegedly asking a child if he masturbated today is just a "naughty email?"”

I’ve read all of Foley’s e-mails I can find published by reputable sorces and have not seen these obscene requests anywere. That Shocked goes to the trouble to say “allegedly” and then asserts the existence of evidence that no one has seen is the darkest kind of Clintonian spin.

The next paragraph is interesting because “Shocked” actually uses the word Agorites and references former comments in this string. I am flattered that this busy “hockey mom” takes time between trips to the pediatrician to read the Agora, but troubled that “she” refuses to recognize the fact that Clinton’s behavior had just as much to do with exploitation of power as Foleys and that that Clinton’s actually resulted in sex acts. We are justly curious as to what proof of Foley’s sins will be produced. And I remind you all again that Clinton’s crime was not against Lewinsky, but Paula Jones. A child “Shocked” seems to be able to ignore or perhaps seeks to get us all to forget.

The stupidity of “Shocked’s” post is that we are not trying to equate Foley to Clinton’s (Shocked can’t even bring “herself” to say his name.) activities with Lewinsky. What has been brought forward is that Democrats were willing to burry Clinton’s crimes against Paula Jones so they could keep their abortion champion in the White House. It is the hypocrisy of Democrats and their spin machine seminar blogger that is open for examination and ridicule here.

“Shocked” then pushes the spin line that Clinton’s only fault was an affair with a CONSENTING Lewinsky, and pretends that the millions spent to uncover Clintons lies were about Lewinsky. This is a lie; a spin tactic, a seminar talking point intended not only to muddy the water around the Foley investigation but rewrite the Clinton legacy. It was Clinton that wasted our money, and Clinton that sexually harassed Paula Jones, and Clinton that lied under oath.

Then the Shocked spin machine generated post goes into attack mode on Republican values. “She” puts in a plug for gay marriage and insults Jesus,

“Of course you will, because Jesus would. I mean, Jesus liked kids, didn't he? I know he wasn't real big on the adultery thing, but that can't possibly compare to the safety and well being of our children. We wouldn't want the world to think we cared more about consenting adults than helpless, defenseless, children...now do we?”

and belittles Christians all in one masterful stir while throwing in a baseless slam at the administrations foreign policy at the same time. This seminar must have really been definitive.

Then “Shocked” goes back to the righteous indignation of a mother and ends up attacking Tony Snow, who for all the respect I hold for him, has never posted “At the Agora”. Seems the seminar forgot to train “Ms” Shocked on how to finish with an insult to the specific web page “she” is posting on. Hate to give them hints, but then the chance “Ms” Shocked will ever read this advice are nil.

Sorry Shocked, I can’t trust you!

I believe we have had such seminar posters at the Agora before; usually with Middle Eastern sounding names and occasionally claiming to be writing from downtown Baghdad. My friend points out that its kind of a complement that we would be noticed enough to attract such folk. I have always answered their spin, but never received any response. I await anything from our Pediatrician visiting hockey mom. I could use a dish of crow right now to get the bad taste out of my mouth.

truth to power said...

"Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay,..."

This piece of the quotation confuses me. Is it implying that a false suggestion of pedophilia would have an especially devastating impact on a congressman known to be gay? What does homosexuality have to do with it? What's going on at the Miami Herald?

Anonymous said...

Kay Summersby: At 24, Summersby was assigned to drive then General Eisenhower during a visit to London. The young woman was engaged, but her fiance died in combat, after which she became Eisenhower's personal secretary and military aide and lover. A correspondence was later found (and destroyed by Truman) in which Eisenhower announced his intention to divorce his wife and marry Summersby. He never followed through. After the war the two illicit lovers never saw each other again. (See Summersby's book)

Would it have been wise to have the Supreme D-Day commander removed from his crucial destiny because "justice" required a hearing of his peccadilloes?
Perhaps, they were a distraction and Hitler could have been assassinated before so many American/British lives had to be lost? NONSENSE

truth to power said...

"Would it have been wise to have the Supreme D-Day commander removed from his crucial destiny because "justice" required a hearing of his peccadilloes?"

So the question is one of wisdom. Is it wise to put people in command who are willing to risk so much for so little? Was Eisenhower indispensable? Could no other man have done his job? Are all great leaders adulterers? NONSENSE

MindMechanic said...

Not sure I am making the connection w/ Anons point...

Maf54 (7:42:27 PM): love to watch that

Maf54 (7:42:33 PM): those great legs running

Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:38 PM): haha…they arent great

Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:45 PM): thats why we have conditioning

Xxxxxxxxx (7:42:56 PM): 2 days running….3 days lifting

Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:11 PM): every week

Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:14 PM): until the end of march

Maf54 (7:43:27 PM): well dont ruin my mental picture

Xxxxxxxxx (7:43:32 PM): oh lol…sorry

Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): nice

Maf54 (7:43:54 PM): youll be way hot then

Sorry...this doesnt just scream "great world leader"

Reach Upward said...

You know, maybe Foley's texts do not rise to the level of criminality, but if my teenage son received messages of this nature, I'm afraid that my head would look like Mt. Vesuvius, a la a cartoon character, in a most un-Christian manner. The level of rage would differ depending on whether this came from one of his peers or from an adult. If from an adult, I'd be strongly tempted to call out the lynch mob, regardless of the legality of the messages.

Of course, being a generally law abiding citizen, I would come to my senses before I actually did anything I would regret. I do not think I'm far off the mark to suggest that most parents would feel the same way. I'm sure that some of this sentiment went into our age of consent laws.

But I'd want the creep to be rendered unable to repeat the offense. And I would think that consequences should accrue to those that had the power to stop the creep, but failed to do so.

Anonymous said...

Seminar Poster????
I hardly think anyone need take a SEMINAR to contend with the "Republican Good" /"Democrat Bad" or "FEW Republican bad"/"MANY Democrats worse" level of ethical and moral argumentation found so often with Lysis at the Agora!!!!

Dec. 3, 1998
Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in RETURN FOR $850,000 -- but no apology or admisssion of guilt from the President.

Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals DISMISSED the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton's battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case WAS DISMISSED by a district-court judge as HAVING NO MERIT.

To make Paula Jones the "poster-child" for abused and harrassed women is the BIGGEST JOKE! --
It is abundantly clear what her "ethics" settled for!!!!

Sexually abused women? sexually abused pages? For Lysis, it's just scandal damage control and an opportunity one more time to "SPIN" the "bash Clinton" bottle, without any REAL concern or empathy for present VICTIMS!!!!

Look at Lysis'Originating post -- the dust still hasn't settled and he's playing the blame game with his sing song, "He's bad, Clinton's worse" tired Rap lyric!!!!

Anonymous said...

Well, God did not remove David as "Supreme Commander" for his Peccadillos and "cover-up with Bathsheeba. David remained God's favorite though he WAS severely punished for his indiscretion.

Sorry to use the Christian allusion -- I don't know if it was kept as part of Lysis' sacred "cafeteria Bible". It might have been ripped out as "mistranslated"!!!!

truth to power said...

Dude! Where do you get off saying Lysis has no concern for the present victims? No one here has been anything but supportive of these exploited children, in contrast to your cavalier dismissal of Clinton's victims.

"FEW Republican bad"/"MANY Democrats worse" ?!!

Oh please! The point we've all been making is that scummy behavior should always be investigated and punished, not just when your favorite party can gain politically!

There's no "damage control" going on here; we're bashing Foley! Pay attention.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...you miss the point again. Paula Jones isnt the poster child for abused women, she is the focal point for the Clinton trial in which all the other ugliness was revealed.

Never have I seen ANYWHERE where Clinton has DENIED the allegations. That she settled out of court is not amazing or shocking...she was filing civil litigation. People of means USUALLY settle out of court. once she accepted, then there was nothing to move forward on. She won...he got out of it without being convicted.

But thats the point isnt it. No apologies. No expressions of regret.

And...No denial of the initial act. You need that act reviewed? Heres a pretty picture...the slickster himself sitting on a couch in a hotel room...pants around his ankles, towel over his unit, and fondling himself. She walks in after being summoned and he stands and drops the towel and asks her to "kiss it". Oh Anon....doesnt that just make you SWELL with pride.

And of course, the smear campaign against Genifer Flowers...did you forget about that? The chutzpah...man...wow...denying everything, making her out to be a tramp...and all she has for evidence is, oh, a dozen or so tape recorded conversations including the conversations of him telling her to lie.

The Juanita Broderick rape...hmmm...no pattern here.

Groping Kathlyn Wiley on the day of her husbands funeral...nope...no pattern there either.

Heres the BIG DIFFERENCE. I see Clinton and I see a...well...lets just call him a flawed individual. I see Foley and I see a flawed individual.

You see Foley and you see a flawed individual. You see Clinton and you see the walking talking God of liberals.

THATS the point.

Liberals are screaming about protection of the children. OK...and I'm hip...protect the children. BUT...liberals DIDNT scream "protect the children" when Democrat Gerry Studds announced a sexual relationship with an underage page. In fact he was reelected three times and given democrat committee posts.

See the difference?

Lysis said...

Truth to Power:

The implication is that an attack on Foley would not have been P.C. because his gayness inoculated him from criticism by Democrats. The Miami Herald knows they must never offend the “base.” Of course now the truth is out – all the neo-libs must jump on the band wagon and try to spin it as best they can. I have no doubt that the neo-libs are disappointed to be deserting the NAMBLA crowd, but then loyalty to anyone has never been a relativist duty. For Peat’s sake, the neo-libs are willing to sell out their country for votes; they will surely stoop to stir up a little homo-phobia if it will get a few seats in the house.

Before someone asks how homophobia ties in, let me point out that the pages and the congressman were all men. If this were a case of cross gender pedophilia it would have much shorter legs.

An excellent example of this is the abuse of Monika. Your right Monica was not a child, but if she had been a he, if Monika would have been Monty, even Clinton would have been in trouble. I on the other hand, as a father of daughters, I maintain that sexually harassing my daughters at any age is equivalent in evil as harassing my sons.

I guess Eisenhower is an example of this, and I will point out that Eisenhower kept his “sins” secret.

Mindmechanic:

Thanks for posting the “text” messages – more proof that Foley is a brainless man. I heard on Fox News tonight that he actually left a debate on the war to have phone sex with a page. The man is an idiot – there is no way to save him – and he will do great damage to many innocent people because his crimes will tar all who can be connected to him.

Reach Upward:

The anger of a parent toward harm done to a child does not subside when ones sons’ pass the age of majority. Take my word on this one now, you will know for yourself soon enough.

Flaccid:

I tossed down the gantlet to the “pediatrician visiting, soccer mom seminar blogger” and all I get is this limp response from you!

Mindmechanic has taken care of your feeble efforts to save Bill Clinton’s reputation. The man is a crook and a liar – You can’t admit it, no neo-lib can. Your drivel is proof of what thinking people fault with your position. You can only condemn people who don’t agree with you. The conservatives, new and old, in this discussion, are willing to decry all sexual misconduct. Why make excuses for the man (Bill Clinton) who cost the Democrats the House, the Senate, and the Presidency? The answer is because he never flinched in his duty to defend infanticide.

To the other Anonymous:

It seems to me even worse that David murdered Bathsheba’s husband appears to have been left out of your version of the Bible?

Mindmechanic:

Thanks for reminding us just how far the neo-libs are willing to go to excuse Billy the C.

MindMechanic said...

"Given the potentially devastating impact that a false suggestion of pedophilia could have on anyone, not to mention a congressman known to be gay,..."

Truth...my spin on the meaning of this statement is this.

The homosexual community is quick to point out that the majority of pedophiles is hetero and not homosexual. This case threatens that lie.

And of course...it is a lie. Men that attack young female children are heterosexual pedophiles. Men who attack male children are homosexual pedophiles. That they may or may not be engaged in a relationship of ANY type, hetero or homosexual is immaterial to their pedophile behaviors.

Dan Simpson said...

I am curious, and would like to direct a question at anonymous, hopefully he/she/it will answer.

Do you truly believe that settling out of court, in a civil trial, equates to the trial being based on lies and fabrications?

That was what your post implied.

Now, maybe your logic meant to put forth the idea that Jones case had no merit, so obviously she settled. However, what you wrote put forth the idea that: Jones settled, obviously she had no case.

The first one is more logically sound, but unfortunately it requires that you show she had no case.

The second is not logically sound and is based on a flawed premise.

Dan Simpson said...

You will notice that I put this in a separate post, this is in an attempt to more clearly show that what I say here has nothing whatever to do with Clinton, (a point that has been lost on some of the anonymous' from other posters).

I too am not sure if the texts rise to the level of criminality. I do, however, hope that a prosecutor (a group that I have much more respect and faith in than some others here) thoroughly searches, and if any crime is possible, even if it is merely a misdemeanor, charges it.

I am glad this guy is gone, and if others in positions of authority knew about it, hope that their names are brought up loudly and often, so that their constituents can do the right thing and vote them out as well.

I heard this morning that a page from 1995 said he was warned about Foley, and that he knows from personal experience that high level staffers knew of Foley's predelictions.

If that is true I wonder how wide spread the blame can go? Not knowing too much about the page system, are they partisan? Or is the page program run by congressional staffers as one big unit.

MindMechanic said...

Dan...

One thing that has been poointed out several times is that the lewd IMs and the emails were to former pages and not current pages. I have seen even those pages that claim to have had IMs from Foley state they had great faith in the page program and I have yet to see any evidence that a page, while in the page program has had innappropriate with Foley.

However there is a record of other congressmen having actual sexual relationships with underage pages. Obviously there is room for improvement in the program.

Regarding Foley...the more we learn about the guy the more sad he becomes. We know things about molesters (and rapists). We know they are not dealing from a healthy emotional and mental perspective. I hope he finds help.

As harsh as I am about Clinton it is primarily not because of him...it is because of his defenders. We have done psych profiles on Clinton and the results are common. He fits typical profiles and you can find understanding by reviewing his history. My greatest upset is with those that defend him and attack others.

Anonymous said...

"Do you truly believe that settling out of court, in a Civil Trial, equates to the trial being based on lies and fabrications?"

No. Where do you find THAT thesis in anything I posted?

Dan:

Do YOU truly believe that settling out of court, in a Civil trial, equates to the trial being based on veracity and evidence?

The FACT that Paula Jones settled for $850,000 DOES cloud her motivation and ethics, though. She didn't HAVE to settle did she? She could have let Truth, Justice and the American way, in their proper place in the COURTROOM, have brought Clinton to Justice.

However, the workings of the judicial system CAN sometimes be used as a scheme for blackmail by a dishonest person who wants to make a profitable settlement rather than establish the truth.

Your experience and knowledge should make you familiar with cases and circumstances like that.

I have heard it said, "By their fruits you shall know them." $850,000 is quite some PICKINGS!!!!

If the renderings of the procedings were that it was "dismissed" because "it had NO MERIT", why ignore the obvious to conclude something salacious about Clinton in this matter?

Anonymous said...

I once heard a prosecuting attorney lecture to 15 and 16 year old "legalists" that " an ACCUSED person is guilty of something or he/she/it wouldn't be ACCUSED!!!!

I responded that his conception of Justice fit better in the procedings of the "Star Chamber" than an American courtroom (I don't think he knew what the "Star Chamber" was nor Danforth nor Hawthorne,)

What an irresponsible buffoon!!!!

Dan Simpson said...

Anonymous:

"It is abundantly clear what her "ethics" settled for!!!!"

This was really the specific comment that made it seem (whether or not it was your point) that settling equates to bad motives.

Of course I realize that often individuals who have not been wronged at all take cases to court in the hopes of a settlement, believe me, I had to read WAY too many tort cases that sickened me to no end.

My problem was that your post seemed to be equating settlement with less reason to trust. To assume that an honest litigant will surely follow through to the end of a case for the honor of the 'American Judical System' is naive at best and flat out ridiculous at worst. Settling is part of the judicial system. It saves time, money, resources etc.

Often times someone will offer a settlement to keep their name from being drug through the mud. This doesn't seem to be a case where that could possibly be true.

"She could have let Truth, Justice and the American way, in their proper place in the COURTROOM, have brought Clinton to Justice."

If the courtroom is the only proper place, then you disagree with ALL settlments, and plea bargains (in the case of criminal), or just in this case?


Again statements like this

"I have heard it said, "By their fruits you shall know them." $850,000 is quite some PICKINGS!!!!"

tend to support what I believe your original post was saying.

That having been said, when you speak of proceedings your timeline confuses me. I will admit, this topic is not of enough legal interest for me to know it that well but you post.

"Dec. 3, 1998
Paula Jones agreed to drop her sexual harassment lawsuit against President Clinton on Nov. 13 in RETURN FOR $850,000 -- but no apology or admisssion of guilt from the President.

Two weeks later, when the 8th U.S. circuit Court of Appeals DISMISSED the suit, it marked the conclusive end of Clinton's battle against Jones and her conservative backers. Seven months earlier, the case WAS DISMISSED by a district-court judge as HAVING NO MERIT"

Here is my question. If Jones dropped the suit, why would the court have to dismiss it? The only thing I can come up with is that it was a procedural step to remove it from the docket officially following her dropping the case. If this is so, then the court wouldn't have ever heard the case. If they did hear the case, then her dropping it would have precluded a decision, and again the dismissal would have been procedural.

The first court dismissing the case is definitely instructive, but such decisions have been overturned in the past. One must wonder if the case was dismissed for no merit, the appeals court was about to do the same, and there was no chance of saving face, as far as name being drug through the mud; why would someone offer nearly a million dollars to end the suit.

Of course it is all academic, I don't know why Clinton offered, I don't know why Jones accepted.

My point. Saying Jones was lying because she accepted an offer is as logically flawed as saying Clinton is guilty because he offered one.

Dan Simpson said...

"I once heard a prosecuting attorney "

From where, who did he work for?

"What an irresponsible buffoon!!!!"

If true, then absolutely.

truth to power said...

"The FACT that Paula Jones settled for $850,000 DOES cloud her motivation and ethics, though. She didn't HAVE to settle did she? She could have let Truth, Justice and the American way, in their proper place in the COURTROOM, have brought Clinton to Justice."

He was already impeached and disbarred. Everybody knows what he really is. How much more justice is there? You seem to be implying she was greedy for money, but wouldn't that motivate her to pursue the suit rather than settle?

"However, the workings of the judicial system CAN sometimes be used as a scheme for blackmail by a dishonest person who wants to make a profitable settlement rather than establish the truth."

This is certainly true, but how does it apply here? We know that Clinton is a sexual harasser by the definitions real businesses and people live by. He's the one who did everything to keep the truth from being established. But now no one's denying the behavior itself anymore. The truth has already been established. And maybe Paula wants to put this behind her as much as Hillary (oops, I mean Bill) does.

Yes, by their fruits you shall know them. And we know Bubba.

Anonymous said...

Yes Lysis, I realize that Danforth's and Hawthorne's and even McCarththy's "courtroom" was geographically in America, but contemporaneously in the middle ages!!!!

Dan Simpson said...

"He was already impeached and disbarred."

Let's keep things in perspective here.

Impeachment proves nothing except that you have a political majority in the House.

He was disbarred for perjury, though it was in the investigation into the Paula Jones scandal, perjury does not prove anything except that he is dishonest. (enough that he is unfit to be a lawyer, and that means something). It does show a pattern of dishonesty and can be used to judge a person. However, it is not proof in the Jones case.

truth to power said...

Dan, I didn't mean to imply that Clinton's punishments to date were equivalent to a verdict in the Jones lawsuit. Anonymous said she should press her suit to the end if she were interested in justice. I'm saying we've already opened a big can of justice on him. What more could she do?

"Impeachment proves nothing except that you have a political majority in the House."

So this has only been the case twice in the history of the republic? Come on, the impeachment of the President of the United States is not a mere political tactic.

Dan Simpson said...

It was the first time.

Fairly obviously.

Anonymous said...

"Come on, the impeachment of the President of the United States is not a mere political tactic."

I think TTP needs to make a closer discrimination between IS and OUGHT statements!!!!

Anonymous said...

Dan:
I didn't say Jones was lying. I said her choice of $850,000 over Truth put her ETHICS in question.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...financial motivation is the settlement in a civil suit. Anytime an individual files a civil case the end result (if successful) is financial.

The FACT that Paula Jones settled for $850,000 DOES cloud her motivation and ethics, though.

MindMechanic said...

truth...your cart is in front of the horse...

Paula Jones filed suit. Clinton was compelled to testify. Under oath he denied sexual activities outside of marriage or other behaviors that might have show a pattern of behavior as indicated in the case. He lied under oath.

Because he lied under oath he was charged with criminal behavior (I'm sure there is a legal term for what he was charged with). He was later impeached and disbarred.

Had he pleaded the fifth or simply looked the prosecutor dead in his eye and said "none of your damn business" he would not have been impeached.

MindMechanic said...

"I think TTP needs to make a closer discrimination between IS and OUGHT statements!!!!"

Well...that all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.

I agree that the impeachment of Clinton was a political manuever. I think the things that came out about the man are far more damning to him and to his character than telling a lie under oath about whether or not you were cheating on your wife.

I still maintain that the Lewinsky case and the trial regarding lying under oath is the best thing that could have happened to Bill. By focusing on a consensual (albeit selfish, one sided, reprehensible, etc) relationship and a lie under oath, the nations focus left his lewd and lascivious behavior regarding exposing himself to Paula Jones, the Juanita Broderick rape, the Kathleen Wiley groping, the Whitewater scandal, the Rose law firm records that vanished and later reappeared, the hiring of a former bouncer and placing him in the White House (without a security background check) and then finding that said bouncer had on his desk 800 classified FBI files on Clinton political opponents, Chinagate, selling of nuclear secrets, illegal campaign contributions, drug dealers in the white house, etc etc etc....

MindMechanic said...

"$850,000 over Truth put her ETHICS in question"

I dont know...I think that settling for that amount was a lot more than she would have been awarded had the case reached a conclusion. As to her ethics, wasnt the case after all about being reimbursed for being sexually harassed?

I suspect had it gone to a final conclusion the award for a grown woman being flashed would have been far less. A hollow victory but I suppose a victory nontheless.

I wonder what the award would be for a guy being flashed by a woman?

"Your welcome" ???

;-)

Sorry...Im getting a little woozy by all this.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

When contemplating why someone might decide to settle with the Clinton machine, it might be worth while considering the fate of Vince Foster and that McDougal guy that didn’t get his pills while in jail and died just before he could testify. When witnesses necessary to bring requisite evidence against the Clintons keep dieing off, one begins to get a little scared.

(As an aside – this is why Giles Cory was willing to be pressed to death – he knew that asking a friend to give evidence against the screaming girls was asking them to risk their lives. I know the Salem court was straight out of the Middle Ages, but where do you think the Clintons, the neo-libs, and the Muslim fanatics want to drag us all?)

As Dan implies; all Paula had to do was look at what happened to Jennifer Flowers, and the other women that Mindmechanic has reminded us of, or review her own dastardly treatment by the Clinton Media. My lands, Flaccid is attacking Paula for settling. How the neo-libs would have howled if she would have made it through a trail alive.

Mindmechanic:
Asking Clinton if he had sex in the Oval Office with a young woman over whom he had great authority was the prosecutor’s business. Until the Clinton precedent kicked in, that was illegal. More importantly the contention in Paula Jones claim was that Clinton had a propensity to abuse women under his authority.

Dan:
Isn’t that what we call evidence?


What I think is most telling about the Foley/Clinton Fuss is that it has become the only political story in the news.

The Democrats have dropped the economy; gas prices are down and the stock market at new highs and on the NPR top of the hour “news” neither fact was mentioned.

Woodward’s book is a yawn and the people he quotes say he isn’t telling the truth. I guess it’s hard to write neo-lib history when the people you are lying about are still living and can show up on Fox News.

If gas prices were going up, the economy at record lows, or the Coalition was loosing in Iraq, they wouldn’t need Foley to talk about.

And now everyone is thinking about Clinton’s legacy. It seems the Democrats can’t win. We can only hope.

Dan Simpson said...

"Dan:
Isn’t that what we call evidence?
"

Evidence: yes.

Proof (which is what I said): No.

Evidence points to something, and with enough evidence you may be able to proove something to the appropriately required level (preponderance in civil beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal).

Something being evidence, however, does not equate to proof.

I said it wasn't proof.

Dan Simpson said...

"Dan:
I didn't say Jones was lying. I said her choice of $850,000 over Truth put her ETHICS in question."

This is only true if you originally believed Bill. If you didn't then it puts HIS ethics in question.

I am curious, do you think that offering a settlement, instead of letting it go to the 'proper' place of a courtroom, shows a lack of ethics? Or brings them into question?

My argument is that you can glean absolutely nothing from an offer by itself either from the offeror, or the offeree.

Dan Simpson said...

Something to bear in mind about the mechanics of a civil suit, if it is brought on a contingency basis.

If it is settled before discovery, the lawyer usually takes 20%

Before trial 30%
Before jury decision 40%

and if it goes to decision, a lawyer can take as much as 50% on contingency basis.

So, as mindmechanic has pointed out, seeing as the end result of a civil suit is money, it is fairly obvious why a plaintiff may want to settle rather than go to decision, or even trial.

Anonymous said...

Then I question the mercenary ethics and motivations for the suit even more! A sleazy MONEY GRABBING SCHEME is hardly a basis on which I would want to rest conclusions about Clinton's guilt or innocence.

No, the Flowers scheme was financed by Conservatives to embarrass Clinton -- Flowers evidently went along to make A LOT of money.

I know that for Lysis ACCUSATIONS against "neo-libs" et al, are Evidence and Truth, but there are many higher standards of evidence than hear say -- lessons from the Crucible tell us the dangers!!!!

Dan Simpson said...

Actually a perjury conviction isn't hearsay.

Dan Simpson said...

Why? Why does bad rules that lawyers made up concerning how lawyers do things in lawsuits call into question the plaintiff's motives.

Is it any less mercenary to require thousands in retainer, and 1000$ an hour (no doubt nearing the amount Clinton's lawyers would be asking), to defend?

Again, why would only the offeree have questionable ethics?

Lysis said...

Dan:

I will defer to your superior knowledge as to legal terms; however my point simply was that the Prosecutor had not only the business but the obligation to ask Clinton those questions. Questions which Clinton had the right to refuse to answer, but when he chose to answer them he had a duty to tell the truth.

As for the impeachment of Clinton, your claim that it was based on politics is silly. First just because Johnson’s Impeachment was political does not mean that Clintons was. What kind of logic is that, did they teach you that at U of U? Just because some in the House were motivated by politics does not mean those who sought his impeachment or voted for it were. I watched as much of the proceedings as often as I could. The truth was evident to all who watched, and Clinton later admitted his CRIMES, validating the justice of the majority in the impeachment vote. Those who voted against impeachment were either liars, fools, or politicos.


Where the decision was directed by politics was in the Senate. There, a senator broke the law to speak out and demand that the Chief Justice tell the Representatives presenting the facts against Clinton to quit calling the Senate a jury. The senator, whose name I fail to recall, demanded that the Chief remind the senators that they DID NOT have to vote based on the TRUTH – but only on POLITICS; which is what a majority did.

Dan Simpson said...

"my point simply was that the Prosecutor had not only the business but the obligation to ask Clinton those questions. Questions which Clinton had the right to refuse to answer, but when he chose to answer them he had a duty to tell the truth."

I completely agree. It was mindmechanic, not I who said he could say none of your business.

"As for the impeachment of Clinton, your claim that it was based on politics is silly"

Never claimed that. I said the only thing it proves is that you have a majority. That is true. Because it is the only thing that has to be true each time it happens. That does not preclude real reasons, there may be those as well. I believe that perjury is such a reason. I never said otherwise.

I was only pointing out that the argument was flawed, Truth said "he had been impeached, and found guilty of perjury" as if that was proof of guilt in the Jones case. My point was that it was not.

You continue to take jabs at my education. I may have to question yours if you cannot decipher my arguments any better than that. After all, I got most of my book learning about debate from you.

Lysis said...

Flaccid:

We are now all awaiting your attack on the mercenary ethics and motivations of the sleazy Foley pages. I am sure you will be able to attack their hunger for lime light and lust for power while awaiting the filing of their law suits.

Lysis said...

Dan:


Dan:

I am sure your education can take the jabs. (Although answering the question about the false analogy attempting to link Johnson’s impeachment to Clinton’s would have been a stronger come back.) As for the quality of your book learning on debate; you win again.

Dan Simpson said...

Okay, lets look at what I argued.

Truth said impeachment proves x

I said it doesn't the only things it proves is a majority.

He says no way is impeachment politically motivated.

I say the first one obviously was.

I never analogized, or linked. Your mind did that.

truth to power said...

Dan, what perjury conviction? Sure, Clinton's a perjurer, but not a convicted one. I agree with Lysis that his acquittal was the political part, not the impeachment.

Lysis, Dan never said Clinton's impeachment was political; just that Johnson's was.

truth to power said...

And I never said impeachment proves something. I did say it's not a mere political tactic, which seems obvious to me. Why were Ford, Reagan, and Bush not impeached?

Why is everybody talking past each other today, instead of reading and responding to what is actually writing?

Dan Simpson said...

Truth.

You are right, after rereading your post, I misconstrued what you used impeachment to support.

Thought I had reread it carefully enough before. Sorry.

If you had said that though, man did I have a good argument.

Lysis said...

Dan:

Agreeing that you never said that Clinton’s impeachment was poiticial, please let me review how I came to misunderstand your position.

Dan says:

“Let's keep things in perspective here.

Impeachment proves nothing except that you have a political majority in the House.”

Why did you say that? – I would argue that impeachment proves that those in the House listened to the proceedings, sifted the evidence, and voted their conscience. I guess I miss understood your use of the word “you”. I thought you meant “you” as in “you who are impeaching someone”.

Truth to power says:

"So this has only been the case twice in the history of the republic? Come on, the impeachment of the President of the United States is not a mere political tactic."

To which Dan replies:

"It was the first time.

Fairly obviously."

I admit I jumped to the conclusion that this last statement was meant to be an argument, creating an analogy between “the first time” and the “second time”. Was that not your intent? [***I really would like an answer to this one.***]

If not, then it seems that we have always been in agreement: that Clinton’s impeachment was not political in nature, but the just censure of an offended nation.

Truth to power;

We are not talking past each other as much as working hard to understand each other.

MindMechanic said...

Questions which Clinton had the right to refuse to answer, but when he chose to answer them he had a duty to tell the truth."

I completely agree. It was mindmechanic, not I who said he could say none of your business.

I think my advice to Clinton as a counsel or consultant would have been "boldly declare that his personal life was none of anyones business. Then, when the judge orders you to answer (as he would) then announce that in principle to your objection to this whole line of questioning you invoke (dont plead) your 5th amendment rights"

Now...I know thats sleezy of me but two points...

1-The whole thing was a debacle
and
2-Its preferable to looking right in the camera with a steady bold gaze and outright lying.

truth to power said...

Amendment 5:

"No person shall be...compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,..." (emphasis mine)

As far as I know, Clinton wasn't asked any questions in the Paula Jones lawsuit that would have incriminated him in a criminal matter.

Anonymous said...

Mea Culpa:
I don't know how Jones became Flowers!!!!

MindMechanic said...

All I know about the law I learned from Law and Order. But...since the civil case regarded harassment and harassment is a criminal offense, any answer given to the affirmative might lead to incrimination in a future criminal proceeding.

Whereas outright lying was DEFINITELY criminal.

truth to power said...

"All I know about the law I learned from Law and Order."

Same here.

"But...since the civil case regarded harassment and harassment is a criminal offense,"

That part's not right. Sexual harassment is a civil matter. I was googling for something definitive to refer you to, but it's hard to prove a negative. Can Dan or somebody else help with this?

MindMechanic said...

Harassment as a federal offense is definitely against the law.

So is indecent exposure. If nothing else, he was guilty of that.

Inrcedibly bad form however is not a crime...its just disgusting.

Anon asked how we got from Jones to Flowers.

I dont know...except that Clinton was recorded telling her to lie, which is at the very least conspiracy.

MindMechanic said...

Harassment as a federal offense is definitely against the law.

Strike that...he wasnt president at the time he exposed himself to Jones. So I guess all he would be guilty of in the Jones case is indecent exposure, sexual assault, and any of the other sexual offenses that land people on the sex offender registry for life.

truth to power said...

Okay, from the Arkansas Code:

"5-14-112. Indecent exposure.

(a) A person commits indecent exposure if, with the purpose to arouse or gratify a sexual desire of himself or herself or of any other person, the person exposes his or her sex organs:
(1) In a public place or in public view; or

(2) Under circumstances in which the person knows the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm.

(b) Indecent exposure is a Class A misdemeanor."

I think that (2) is a problem here. I'm sure Clinton was surprised and even disappointed that his conduct caused affront and alarm. He thought he was gonna get some.

MindMechanic said...

I have posted what I think is a radical but realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration. If anyone is interested...

http://historicalperspective.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

An agreement to settle is a contract between the parties that requires both parties to surrender their right to sue -- in the Jones' case she surrendered her RIGHTS for monetary compensation, $850,000.

To suggest that the ONLY "motivation" for a civil suit is monetary is cynical -- for some, PRINCIPLE is far more important than whatever COMPENSATION might be "settled" on.
Jones took the money and left PRINCIPLE in the wake.

Clinton did not initiate the suit.
He offered $850,00 to settle it. I can IMAGINE circumstances where one would offer money to settle, even though innocent of the charges -- so can you and every major corporation in America. To me, that makes his offer LESS ethically culpable than Jones' acceptance.


The incentive of PROVEN RIGHT has definite ETHICAL allure over venal monetary motivations, no matter how large.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

"He offered $850,00 to settle it. I can IMAGINE circumstances where one would offer money to settle, even though innocent of the charges"

I can imagine it too...but not AFTER you allow it to go to trial and you put yourself on the stand and give sworn testimony.

He was nailed. He knew it.

Dan Simpson said...

Lysis, It was honestly not my intent to draw an analogy between the two.

Each has to be looked at separately. My point was to give evidence as to why this statement,

"Come on, the impeachment of the President of the United States is not a mere political tactic."

was a flawed idea of impeachment.

I will maintain that the ONLY thing one can prove every time about impeachment is that there is a majority. In individual circumstances an impeachment may be the result of other things, but as a constant, it means political majority.

Anonymous said...

MM:
If Clinton was "nailed" why didn't Jones procede with the "nailing" instead of taking money?


You seem to think that Clinton could dictate when Jones accepted the offer of settlement . . . "after you(he) allow(ed) it to go to trial" . . .

That's not true at all -- who knows how long or for what conditions the offer had been on the table before she accepted the settlement -- certainly not you!!!!

Anonymous said...

". . . but the just censure of an offended nation" -Lysis

Impeach -- to bring an accusation against.

Impeaching is ACCUSING NOT CENSURING. The "impeachment" FAILED, therefore the "nation" was NOT offended and the censuring did NOT commence!!!!

Anonymous said...

Clinton was, in fact, impeached. The removal process failed.

Anonymous said...

Must not have noticed the quotes around "impeachment" -- but thank you for restating my point.

Lysis said...

Flaccid:

You are technically right; Clinton’s crimes against Paula Jones were never addressed in court. But these facts remain. He lied to keep the truth about his abuse of women under his authority secret, and he paid offered and then paid money to keep the case from going to trial. I am satisfied to judge him by his actions in this SCANDAL and am please that history will do the same.

That Clinton was a master at manipulating evidence against him is well demonstrated. The convenient deaths of Vince Foster and McDougal are atrocities that will yet come home to roost. No offertory to justice by any government official will ever occur but Clinton’s name be recalled and his crimes measured against it. What a pleasure to see the “turn Foley’s evil into a political issue mob” choke on Clinton’s perfidy.

For the record: The Impeachment did not fail. Clinton was impeached! The fact that the majority of the House or Representatives, required to vote according to the evidence and their conscience - not politics, had been convinced that Clinton had committed a high crime is indeed a censure on his evil deeds. That the Senate, voting on political grounds, chose not to through the garbage out does not mean that Clinton was not impeached. He was, and denying it shows once more your limp and twisted determination to redefine terms to fit you agenda.

His Impeachment is the centerpiece of the Clinton Legacy. It is, in the end, all he will be remembered for.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone notice the reckless good 'ol boy Republicans had appointed Foley as Co-Chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus.

Now who is responsible for THAT blunder? The Neo-libs????

Hastert should resign!!!!

Lysis said...

Flaccid:

Did anybody notice how the good old boy Democrats elected Bill Clinton President of the United States two times.

Now who is responsible for THAT blunder? The Neo-cons????

The Democrats should resign!!!!

Lysis said...

Flaccid:

Did anyone notice how the good old boy Democrats voted to allow Bill Clinton to retain his office of President after it was proven that he had committed prudery.

Now who is responsible for THAT blunder? The Neo-cons???

The Democrats in the Senate should resign!!!!

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

"If Clinton was "nailed" why didn't Jones procede with the "nailing" instead of taking money?"

Perhaps because she saw the reward as being justice enough. Remember...Paula Jones was a loyal democrat and campaign worker when Clinton pulled his stunt. Maybe she figured the offer was enough to satisfy her. Perhaps she was after her version of justice and not the whole "pound of flesh".

Perhaps her lawyers said this is a good offer and it probably isnt going to get any better.

Who knows? Certainly not me...and certainly not you.

I think its fair to say that where there is smoke there is fire. In Clintons case there isnt merely smoke, theres a blazing forest fire.

MindMechanic said...

"Did anyone notice the reckless good 'ol boy Republicans had appointed Foley as Co-Chair of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus."

Id have to say the person responsible was not the "good ol boy republicans, but rather Foley himself. He lied and misrepresented himself as a champion of childrens rights. Until two weeks ago, he had everyone, republicans AND democrats, sufficiently fooled.

But see? You are doing that thing...instead of this being about a flawed man that made some despicable choices, you want to make this a blanket attack on republicans.

So...once again...I'll oblige you.

Democrat Gerry Studds not only had inappropriate conversations he engaged in sexual actions with an underage male page. He PROUDLY declared it in a news conference. Democrats not only re-elected him, they appointed him to chair the House Ways and Means committee.

What DISGUSTING behavior democrats showed!

Blill Clinton raped a woman, groped another on the day of her husbands funeral, had countless affairs on his wife, engaged in sexual relationships with a subordinate, used objects like cigars in his sexual actions, made visiting dignitaries wait outside the Oral office while he engaged in self pleasures, set about destroying the character of every woman that he ever used, encouraged women to commit perjury (including his secretary)..yet democrats stood by him and point to him as their patron saint of liberalism.

DISGUSTING BEHAVIOR those liberals demonstrate.

Call me silly...but I think you are a little daffy trying to play the moral integrity card. Your party has ZERO by way of character and integrity.

Maybe Congressman Jefferson could chair a committe for your party. Heck...he already has shown what his price tag is.

fed up said...

First of all, Lysis has an argument regarding his "serial blogger." However, as to an inability to locate a request to measure one's penis, check here http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/BrianRoss/story?id=2509586&page=1. It is, to be specific, a question as to what size the former page's erected penis is. This does not negate your argument about serial posting, but that is not made up.

Furthermore, Lysis answered, "No one here is defending Foley; perhaps you were so eager to deny the truth, that there is a double standard in play, that you forgot to read the title of the Post. "Mr. Foley, You Are a Brainless Man" Lysis, I never accused you or mindmechanic of defending Foley. I quick review will show that. In fact, I indicated my awareness that mind mechanic, in particular, had made the specific point several times that he was NOT DEFENDING FOLEY. I wasn't telling him or anyone what he or she could or could not say. I was telling him, with the use of some sarcasm to be sure, that he/she didn't need to remind me he/she wasn't defending Foley. He/She had made that clear.

You seem to be in such a hurry to misunderstand nearly everything I posted and to be a bit vulgar in my general direction that you missed my point. "You seem to get off on telling people what they can and cannot say." Eww and completely beligerant and unnecessary. Surely you don't treat anyone who doesn't disagree with you this way? I am sure you don't.

My point still stands. While the discussion of former President Bill Clinton's issues is facinating, it has distracted entirely rather than shed any light on the Foley issue. I don't believe you meant it to be a distraction, but that is what it has become, an excuse to rehash the nasty acts of nasty man because another disturbed man. I think this is an indication of the Republican Party's response as a whole. Why so quick to fall on the sword or push others there? Republicans are acting ridiculous in many cases. On the other end, the Democrats are even more so. Nancy Pelosi has stated that every Republican should pay for the Foley scandal. Check out Patty Wetterling's campaign commercial which alleges that Foley has used the internet to molest children and that Republicans in the House of Representatives have knowingly covered it up. There is not yet evidence for either. I could on. My point Lysis, simply is that your title is right, Foley is a brainless man. Your discussion diverts from that fact rather than addresses it. I suppose this is me telling you what to say and "getting off." It is not. It is simply a critique of the tendency by many Conservatives as a whole to turn the discussion into a rehash of Bill Clinton, which, in my opinion (and one I am unlikely to find many share with me here I guess) has nothing to do with the Foley issue.

I appreciate Reach Upward's comments. They were spot on and provided me pause and occassion to think.

Mind Mechanic has provided more spot on comparisons (example Stubbs). This is now looking more like the Stubbs case as one of the two pages was of age during some if not all of the IM sessions ABC reported. ABC changed that information without noting that it was a correction. Interesting and sloppy. I dare to pose the question of whether it matters that both pages whose instant messages are available freely talked about sexual issues back. Boys hanging out with their friends or camping out etc. could very likely talk about sex with one another right? Does it matter if the friend they are discussing these issues with is much older than they are? I say in this case it does, because Foley took advantage of a young person's desire to please him, to make him happy, to further his attention for his own selfish ends. Stubbs' page that he had sex with stood next to him in a press conference and said with Stubbs that they were consensual lovers. Foley's certainly has not, but there have not been accusations yet of molestation or the like. Before I am attacked myself for defending Foley, I am not arguing that this is o.k. I am asking genuinely to those who might want to discuss it, if any of this matters.

MindMechanic said...

Fed Up...

I appreciate your responses. I have been readin much of the ABC spin and frankly, I think they are more disgusting than the dems that are using this as a campaign ploy.

Numerous times the ABC site put up headlines like "More Congressman Being Monitored for Misconduct with Pages" then the story ahd NOTHING to do with the headline, and in a day or so it just vanishes.

ABC has NOT reported with the same clarity that none of the pages involved were current pages or that most were of age when the IMs occured.

This is about Foley. Its about one man and his foolishness, his weakness, his possible criminal behaviors.

I agree it is NOT about Bill Clinton or even Gerry Studds. As long as this remains a reasonable if passioned debate about the actions of an individual and the way to correct the problem, then I see no reason for others names to enter in.

But...I am kind of a jerk when it comes to the smear tactics. I see it...I respond. I usually dont JUST respond...I usually respond and then grind my heel in as deep and as hard as I can. Its not nice and its probably a dramatic character flaw. Something I am sure I should work on.

I wish the debate didnt go there.

truth to power said...

On one level, it's true that this is not about Clinton or Studds. It's about Foley, and whoever else did wrong on this one.

But in a larger sense, this is not an isolated incident. Something is wrong with the way these things get handled in our society, from sexual abuse by Catholic priests to sexual harassment by congressmen. People in positions of trust and authority engage in inappropriate and harmful behavior, and people who have the duty to put a stop to it sweep it under the rug. Eventually the problem explodes in a major scandal. The particular organization applies some bandaids, we pay lip service to the issue for a while, and then everybody goes back to business as usual.

We all need to learn the more general lessons from this. Yes, I've seen the stupid harassment videos at work, but why do these things keep coming up? We have to quit letting people get away with this stuff, even if it weakens our short-term political power. The long-term consequences are worse; the Democrat Party is still suffering for its last deal with the devil.

I want good, smart people in charge of the government. But if I have to choose one, I prefer good.

MindMechanic said...

truth...I agree with your last statement and ultimately...WE have the say. I personally wish more people were politically active. While I disagree with the Anon collective here on much that they stand for, I respect that at least they care enough to stand for something. I wish more people did.

MindMechanic said...

Hold on to your hats...

latest news flash on Drudgereport cites an article that states that two former pages are responsible for the graphic e-mails and that they were done as a prank.

One has gotten a lawyer. It doesnt mean Foley wasnt involved but that he likely was not the instigator nor the agressor and that it was done by current pages as a joke against him.

Which makes him sad and pathetic as well as flawed.

Anonymous said...

As long as salacious and unprincipled behavior are human attributes, and the government is peopled with humans, then scandals will occur.

It is naive to believe (and historically indifensible) that one PARTY is scandal prone over another.

However, I do not agree that Clinton's indiscretions have made him a BAD President at all -- nor have JFK's nor Eisenhower's nor Roosevelt's "misadventures" discredited their presidency -- nor does Bush's "righteousness" and "rectitude" redeem his Presidency.

Lysis spends so much time "writing" history the way he wants it to be, that I wonder he has any time left to teach it.

That's right, my mistake -- for him it's the same thing!!!!

MindMechanic said...

Anon...I agree thats not all that made Clinton a bad president. His reliance on a dotcom economy that went bust as fast as it went boom, his failure to act on education, on social security, is administrations repeated classified leaks at our nations nuclear facilities, his dismal foreign policy failures, his refusal to engage Iraq for 8 years while Iraq refused to comply with 17 UN resolutions, his failed "war on drugs" efforts, his general lack of interest in combating terrorism ANYWHERE, his failed leadership as commander in chief...

man...LOTS to choose from as far as his failures and reasons history should judge him harshly.

His two crownj jewels were the passage of the Balanced Budget amendment and welfare reform...both Republican actions that he fought and had rammed down his throat.

You want to know what I think will go down as my biggest disgust of the guy? It came when he appeared on MTV...the famous "boxers or briefs" Q and A session. During his time with the youth he was asked about his drug use and the "I didnt inhale" comments. He was asked if he WASNT allergic would he go ahead and smoke pot. Ever the hipster, Bill chuckled and laughed and said "If I could yeah sure..." heh heh. heh. heh. Not that funny is it? He had the chance to be 'presidential', to tell the kids something to the effect of "Looking back there are a lot of things I would do differently...better...thats the blessing of age and wisdom. Instead...he was too busy being Bill the cat...he lost me on that day.

truth to power said...

Obviously one party is not scandal-prone over another. They're equally likely to wink at the wrongdoing of their members out of tribal "loyalty". This stinks to high heaven.

Anonymous:

"However, I do not agree that Clinton's indiscretions have made him a BAD President at all -- nor have JFK's nor Eisenhower's nor Roosevelt's "misadventures" discredited their presidency -- nor does Bush's "righteousness" and "rectitude" redeem his Presidency."

The presidencies of Clinton, Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Roosevelt were not all bad; even Clinton signed welfare reform. But their bad behavior was bad for their official duties, and bad for the office. And of course, a good man doesn't necessarily make a good president--look at Carter.

But I'm really tired of people excusing the bad behavior of leaders as long as they get their pet political results. The ends do not justify the means.

I'm still enough of an idealist to hope we can elect intelligent, principled, strong leaders who agree with me politically. Then again, maybe people like that don't want the job.

MindMechanic said...

Sorry...I forgot "ignoring illegal immigration"...

Anonymous said...

Are there no lows to which Drudge won't stoop? The headline reads: "CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY." Oh, really? You mean Foley didn't ask about penis length? Or masturbation? Or wonder if he "made him a little horny?"

No, actually — even Drudge can't deny that Foley did all those things. His point is that those sneaky, evil pages tricked the poor hapless six-term Congressman into writing lurid sexually-charged messages. What? You mean Foley didn't make the pages horny? Well, I never!

Spinneth Drudge:

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting 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.
So let's get this straight: Everyone was in on the joke but Foley, who still thought he was typing dirty messages to a sixteen-year old kid. Drudge calls it an "online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives." Yep, it sucks when those enemies start telling the world what you actually, you know, did.

Drudge's small print — much smaller than the misleading, giant-point headline — reads: "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." Because those were also written by Congressman Foley. Intentionally. And that is the issue.

Drudge, you suck. Mindmechanic you swallow.

truth to power said...

So what if someone was yanking Foley's chain? He responded. We arrest people for responding to sexual internet messages that are supposedly from children but really from law enforcement officers. Foley done wrong. And he knows it; he resigned.

Lysis said...

Fed Up:

No one doubts your sincerity or your fervor. My unmasking of the Seminar Blogger was directed to “Shocked By Your Rationalizing”.

As to the rest of your post – I have already read the IM exchange between Foley and some one designated xxxxx in its entirety. There displayed were to very crude and obviously unthinking people. If one was a U.S. Congressman – which I am quite sure one was, and the other an underage boy, which his trip to help his mom with the computer seems to indicate, your disgust cannot exceed mine. So I ask what is your point. The fact remains that Foley is evil and that “Shocked By Your Rationalizing” is a seminar blogger.

We all agree that no one is defending Foley, he is indeed indefensible.

I fail to see anything vulgar in my comment on your pleasure in ordering pin telling people what they should say. You were very strong in your demand to Mindmechanic, and I quote:

“Don't get yourself worked up telling us again Mind Mechanic that you are not excusing Foley. Got it.”

We got it!!!!! So you had no need to repeat it here. Please understand you are not the only one who gets shrill and fed up – so please excuse others how might be “fed up with you”.

Now to the rest of your arguments –

What has been the response of the Republican Party as a whole to Foley? They have thrown him out of his job, called for a Congressional investigation into his crimes, and have universally condemned his actions. Please explain how this is ridiculous. Some rather odd types on the conservatives side are calling for the Speaker to resign but a neo-lib can hardly call that ridiculous; as it is what many neo-libs are calling for. I would agree with you that there is no evidence of anyone covering up anything.

The reason that conservatives who attacked Clinton for his crimes against women are dismayed and vocal about the Democrats response to Foley is that they, not the Republicans, are behaving differently this time around. The very Democrats that fought so hard to defend Clinton because he was “only lying about sex” now act as if lying about sex were a capital crime. It is this hypocrisy and down right proof of dishonesty that frustrates all who sought then as we seek now – for justice. Therefore the differing response of Democrats and the consistent response of Republicans has every thing to do with the Foley issue. I agree with you entirely that talking about sex with age group friends (or for that matter a lover or a spouse) is a completely different that a person of authority, especially an adult with a child.

Your rationalizations about Stubb’s page are troubling to me. As I have said, I have read the offensive IM’s and there is nothing in the xxxxx’s comments to indicate that he is being forced to participate in the discussing games Foley is asking him to play. This xxxxx person is not an imbecile, nor is he unaware of his own sexuality. He seems to me to be actively participating in the lurid profanity of the conversation. I don’t attack him, only recount the truth. His own eager participation in this atrocity show him to be perverse, if it was Foley that perverted him; then Foley’s crime is that much the greater. Xxxxx His age alone makes him the victim here. He was abused under law, and for that I pity him. Foley surely manipulates him, but the kid is not being forced. Foley and Stubb are both equally at fault. It is the Law that must be considered here not the attitude of the boys. It is the disparate response of Democrats and Republicans that tells the truth about their stands on this sort of behavior.

MindMechanic said...

Anon...

The stories reported on Drudge all link to 'reliable' sources (as reliable as AP UPI, or any of the rest can be).

My point was simply to stand by. I think this is going to get wacky.

I hope...HOPE that they run a full blown investigation. I hope EVERY congressperson that is involved in the sleave gets caught, exposed, and dealt with. Ive never suggested otherwise.

I also have never suggested there wasnt validity to the claims.

Your vulgar attacks damn you far more than anything I could say.

MindMechanic said...

Truth...anon...I am left wondering if you actually read the post.

"It doesnt mean Foley wasnt involved but that he likely was not the instigator nor the agressor and that it was done by current pages as a joke against him.

Which makes him sad and pathetic as well as flawed."

In this ONE case (so far) the pages apparently thought Foley was somewhat of a joke. They (by their statement) were ridiculing him and making fun of him with the other pages. That is ALL I stated...not that he wasnt culpable. NOT that he wasnt guilty. NOT that he wasnt involved.

HIS actions and their treatment make him that much more pathetic.

Do you not see that?

MindMechanic said...

BTW Anon...I'll take Drudge over ABC any day. And apparently if the others in the media are to be believed they do too.

What makes you and people like SO angry is that dudge actually delivers both sides. THATS something you dont get from the rest of the media outlet.

You obviously went to the drudge site today...how many articles are posted about republicans opposing Hastert? Did you miss Drudges revelation that Fox News showed Foley as a democrat?

Drudge has changed the media. He has forced stories to come out that have been buried by the mainstream. Its no wonder the left hates him.

And you think his 'type' settings are inappropriate, try looking at CNN, CBS and ABCs site. they dont even bother with retractiosn when they are wrong.

MindMechanic said...

Oh...BTW...you are either very wrong or just plain lying about the typest. It is identical to the rest of the article.

http://www.drudgereport.com/page.htm

Lysis said...

Flaccid:

You are simply wrong – Clinton’s became a bad President when he lied under oath to a Grand Jury and a Federal Judge. Our American Justice system and our Laws are based on the presentation of the truth. No truth, no Justice!! This is why we have laws and penalties for perjury. In the play “The Furies, or The Eumenides” Athena states, “No one should piss in the well they draw drink from”. As the chief law enforcement officer of our nation, as the sworn defender and enforcer of the Laws of our Nation, his obscene lies to defend his political position damn his as a President. Sex has nothing to do with it.

Rather than name calling and disinformation, give us some examples of any of the history I have presented in the past two years that is not supported by documentation, and reason.

Your limp attack on me is like the Clinton inspired attacks on the Republican Party and the disingenuous indignation of such seminar bloggers as “Shocked” that are the central story of the Clinton/Foley scandal.

Rumpole said...

Truth to Power,

You post: “On one level, it's true that this is not about Clinton or Studds . . .”

I must disagree. This is about Clinton on every level. Clinton is desperate to rewrite history. Clinton thinks he can gin up a successful legacy. Clinton thinks he can regain a measure of power through the successful election of Hillary.

Can anyone forget how Clinton recently shook his boney finger at Wallace in apparent "righteous indignation" at Wallace’s questions? The problem for Clinton is that righteous indignation can only work if you are on the side of truth. Clinton is not. He went on that program aching for those questions to be asked so he could appear to come off as the victim in the vast “right wing conspiracy (Hillary Clinton).” Too bad history doesn’t bear out his new story.

Did you read the righteous indignation from our seminar blogger? “It’s about my children,” she screams! Now that it has been reveled that the page was 18, not 16, will she return and offer the same righteous indignation for Monica Lewinsky? Will we hear, “It’s about our youth at the age of consent that we send to Washington to serve!” Of course we won’t hear that. Clinton must be defended at every turn!

Make no mistake, no matter the circumstances, Foley’s behavior is reprehensible. But the issue is not about Foley’s behavior. Nancy Pelosi, who has condemned Foley at every turn, voted 5 times to appoint Studds chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after Studds' “indiscretions” were revealed.

When Studds was censured, he turned his back on the House while the vote took place in Clintonesque “righteous indignation.” Democrats applauded, and gave Studds three standing ovations.

This is as much about Clinton as Dan Rather’s forged document scandal was. It is as much about Clinton as Abramoff was. It is as much about Clinton as George Allen is.

What we must hope for is a well-informed public. The Democrats count on the short memory of the electorate. I hope voters across the country are paying attention.

Strategos,

I know the history debate has long passed, but these current circumstances are instructive on history’s value and application. Clinton’s actions cannot be currently ignored. A clear understanding of those actions helps reveal the truth about current events. That information is critical when casting a vote in the upcoming elections.

MindMechanic said...

Current Drudge Headlines:

Three More Former Pages Accuse Foley of Online Sexual Approaches

Page's family: Leave our 'hero' son alone...

Panel Approves Subpoenas...

13 U.S. soldiers killed since Monday in crucial Battle for Baghdad...

Ramsey Clark says Saddam death penalty will unleash 'catastrophic' violence...

CBS: Unlikely Terrorists On No-Fly List; List Includes President Of Bolivia, Dead 9/11 Hijackers...

That looks like a pretty fair list of articles that could be deemed unfavorable to conservatives...right???

None of the network news .com sites have anything about the dead US soldiers. Only NBCnews.com even mentions the ongoing battle.

Abc News is dedicated almost entirely to the Foley case.

Any time Fox or Drudge reports both sides its biased. So...what do you say...does that make ALL THE REST unabashedly biased to the left?

Dan Simpson said...

I was listening to the radio on my way in to work today as they spoke to an ABC reporter about Foley. They asked him about something Drudge had reported and it was amazing the disdain that seemed to flow from his mouth as he answered.

He grudgingly admitted that Drudge has gotten 'some' stories in the past, but that some have been made up out of thin air and it is 'impossibly to know which this is.'

I thought, why because he uses the same backing 'an unnamed source' as any big news outlet. And has probably gotten fewer stories completely wrong than such prestigious entities as CBS yet if it is reported on Drudge one cannot know if there is any truth to it at all.

Anonymous said...

Lysis Posts:
Rather than name calling and disinformation, give us some examples of any of the history I have presented in the past two years that is not supported by documentation and reason.

The Flat earth society, those who deny the holocaust, those who claim abduction by visiting aliens, irrational reactionaries and paranoid schizophrenics, ALL CLAIM their DELUSIONS are "supported by documentation and reason."

I am not impressed with your STANDARDS nor the ASSOCIATES who share your STANDARDS.

ALL of the "history" you have alluded to over the last two years is contaminated with self-serving propaganda, because you see HISTORY as nothing more than grist for a political agenda -- a means to an end.

That is what most offends!!!!

It is an INTERESTING pastime to draw parallels between past and present, but a TEACHER should also make others aware of the DANGERS of obsessively making sense of things this way; and how this pastime can turn into manipulation and dishonesty.

Hell, Lysis, I am dismayed that history seems NOTHING more to you than a club with which to bash political enemies.

As for name-calling:

You feel free to CONSTANTLY call names; I do not know why you would object to the "dark side" of Quid Pro Quo!!!!

truth to power said...

So, notwithstanding his mention of Holocaust deniers, Anonymous doesn't dispute any of Lysis' presentation of history, just his application of it.

Anonymous said...

All of the presentation IS application -- that's the point you've seemed to miss.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid:

I do not object to the fact that you call names. Sometimes names are excellent descriptives that encapsulate the essence of the subject they refer to. Example – Flaccid. What I do object to is your complete inability to give examples, present facts, or provide logic to support your positions. You never support your flip or flop with anything but your limp opinion. For someone who lauds the power of empirical evidence you seem (and justifiably so) terrified to produce.

As for using History as a club. Crushing the deceitful and disingenuous seems to be an excellent employment of the truth.

Rumpole has provided excellent examples. How could we judge the real motives of Democrats now clamoring for blood over lurid e-mail and text messages involving Foley without knowledge of Clinton, Studds, and other Democrat lechers; whose defense by Democrats such as Pelosi and others now belies their false indignation over Foley. The pretended “righteous indignation” of Clinton over claims that he failed to defend America from terrorism are made ridiculous by the historic facts that demonstrate his failure in spite of his tantrum to sway us to believe otherwise. If I have clubbed down Pelosi and Clinton by revealing their lies, I consider it a battle well fought, a just victory well won.

If you want to challenge my facts or even my interpretation of historic events there are legitimate ways of doing it. If you want to present a counter club, I will not be afraid to face a firm and biting blow. Your club is flaccid; it cannot strike with any effect.

Call me all the names you want, but back them up with something other than your indignation. All such a tantrum revels is that your position doesn’t stand up.

Lysis said...

Dan;

If I might compare small things to great; (My little tiff with Flaccid and ABC’s Battle royal with Drudge) the attack on Drudge perpetrated by ABC seems to me to be similar to the Flaccid attack above. Weight and edge could have been added to ABC’s blow if they would have included a little history. A blaring mistake by Drudge, or an outright lie for some political end, might destroy his voice, but such unreferenced name calling as you indicate ABC has indulged in seems to be as pointless as a pillow fight.

As we begin to get the facts on the history of the Clinton/Foley debauchery, I am force to wonder how ABC will deal with the revelation that their “innocent page boys” were in truth adults.

Sounding any kind of a defense for Foley would be folly, but if Foley was talking privately with an adult who feigned or held similar interests, that is surely a different picture than ABC originally set out to portray. If the history is different than ABC presented it, we surely need to know. If ABC can prove its position, then Foley is proved a villain, I Drudge can prove his, then ABC is the evil entity that should face the club of truth.

Anonymous said...

Proctor:
"This society will not be a bag to swing around your head Mr. Putnam."
-The Crucible

"That the guiding hand behind the outcry was Putnam's is indicated by the fact that, as soon as it began, the Topsfield/Nurse faction absented themselves from church in protest and disbelief. It was Edward and Jonathan Putnam who signed the first complaint against Rebecca; and Thomas Putnam's little daughter was the one who fell into a fit at the hearing and pointed to Rebecca as her attacker."

Putnam was a kind of person to SPIN "stories and histories" so as to serve his arrogant needs -- small consequence to him that many HONORABLE Salem citizens were injured and murdered!!!!

"You are technically correct" was the LAST Lysis concession (but certainly not the ONLY concession to irrefutable empirical evidence and overwhelming examples and logic).

With regards to Lysis' last posting:

Yes, I DID notice that the irrational squealing of the girls would become more deafening whenever Truth had scored a victory!!!!

Lysis said...

What?

Anonymous said...

test