<p>"Now, since the GOP leadership admitted having the Louisiana e-mails in 2005, I’d interpret your “question” as being an assertion that those e-mails failed to constitute “any evidence whatsoever.” Granted, it’s not as clear as “When did you stop beating your wife” - hey, it’s just a question!! - but when you include an assumed fact in your “question” I take it as your assettion of the truth of that fact.</p>
<p>So, no, I don’t owe you an apology. You probably owe CGM one, but she’s got pretty thick skin, so I doubt that she’ll stamp her pretty little foot and demand it."</p>
<p>You just continue with the same pattern of behavior. You add words, you twist, you spin and you flat out lie. You also know the distinction between email and IM but you continue to twist and spin and lie on that too. Of course you won’t apologize because you are shameless. ANd for the final time: If I place a ? after a group of words, it is a QUESTION. If I place a . or an ! it’s not a QUESTION. Get it now?</p>
<p>Who saw Bob Beckel on tv last night? He was a consultant for Gore and Kerry. His point of view on all this was that the emails and IMs were separate. That the emails were not inappropriate on their own, but that since the republican leadership knew that Foley was gay he should have never been allowed near pages because that would be like “leaving Willie Sutton alone in a bank vault.” Let that sink in for a while.</p>
<p>“The fact that the GOP apologists here keep insisting that there’s absolutely nothing anyone could have done between “asking him to stop” and reporting him to the FBI strikes me as an attempt to force the more obvious responses off the radar”</p>
<p>Can you point to specific posts that say that? Bearing in mind the distinction between the emails and the IMs leaked to/by the press.</p>
<p>I think the emails were not inappropriate, as a parent…any adult who asked my kid for a picture…ewwwwwww…and talked about my Ds friends having good bodies…double ewwwwww…</p>
<p>CGM: the IMs were hideous. Foley should have resigned. He did. If there are criminal charges possible (I wouldn’t know that), they should be brought immediately. If anyone else is implicated, they should step aside immediately, even Hastert. I would, however, like to know who (of whatever party) knew and when and did nothing to get this guy out of there. The initial emails were absolutely grooming, but I’m not sure everyone would have perceived that or been brave enough to act on that without the benefit of hindsight. The IMs were the stuff of every parents’ nightmares. But, really, I keep asking myself “who does that?” What on earth would possess someone to write those things to anyone, much less a child. Does one become so out of touch with reality in Congress that this behavior seems acceptable? Do we know that there was no actual contact (ever) by Foley toward any page? I really would like to know the answers to these questions.</p>
<p>“That the emails were not inappropriate on their own, but that since the republican leadership knew that Foley was gay he should have never been allowed near pages because that would be like “leaving Willie Sutton alone in a bank vault.” Let that sink in for a while.”</p>
<p>Ok, I’ve let it sink in, zoosermom, and I think it’s a ridiculous statement, regardless of who said it.</p>
<p>CGM, again, it’s a question of not knowing what we don’t know. How was this presented to Hastert? I don’t know that and I don’t think you do either. You really don’t want to know what happened? What if it does turn out that Hastert didn’t know but that high-ranking members of the democratic caucus did and intentionally held onto the information. How would you feel about that? It’s certainly a plausible scenario at this point. I would also like to know why the FBI failed to act, wouldn’t you? I think an investigation is a great idea and would welcome the findings.</p>
<p>If the pages had been girls, I wonder if the leadership would have acted in the same manner…there is this notion, that boys aren’t vulnerable to advances, from males or females, and that it is okay because, well, they are guys…</p>
<p>when you look at the female teachers that had relations with young male students, I wonder what adult men think…oh, lucky kid? </p>
<p>I think, and may be guessing, that because it was males that were sent the emails, it wasn’t seen as “dangerous” to some…not as obvious, while if an adult male asked a 16 yo girl the same questions, if the reaction would have been different</p>
<p>“If the pages had been girls, I wonder if the leadership would have acted in the same manner…there is this notion, that boys aren’t vulnerable to advances, from males or females, and that it is okay because, well, they are guys”</p>
<p>You know, that’s a great question. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I bet things would have been different. There does seem to be a societal double standard, doesn’t there?</p>
<p>“What if Bill Clinton and Osama Bin Laden actually created the IM’s using fake screen name?”</p>
<p>Gla, that was a bit uncalled for. We’ve had a courteous conversation here. I was referring to the blogger who posted the IMs and has seemed to disappear without a trail. I would like to know how he got those messages, wouldn’t you? Because whoever was holding them and setting up their exposure has a lot of explaining to do.</p>
<p>No Zooser I don’t think it was uncalled for. We know that Alexander, Reynolds, Shimkus and Hastert were aware of the emails and did the absolute minimum to investigate. To imply that the Democratic leadership was sandbagging Foley is wild speculation. I don’t know who provided the IM’s to ABC. Could very well have been other pages who had them, but didn’t turn them over until the emails became public. I don’t know. I also didn’t know who Deep Throat was for 30 years. So what. What the Republican leadership did was clearly wrong and indefensible.</p>
<p>DRJ4: Your accusation that Conyers’ response to your statement that “But I haven’t seen anything in the initial emails that make me think the GOP leaders should have done more than they did” was “an intentional misreading” of your earlier post was unwarranted. Conyers gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you lacked the experience to recognize “grooming” which was strongly suggested by the intially known e-mails. By accusing Conyers of “misreading” your post, do you mean to suggest that you actually recognized the e-mails as such, and still claim that the GOP leaders did all that was necessary? I’d like to give you the benefit of the doubt and think that that’s not what you meant. But given your response to Conyers, I’m not sure what you intend by your assertion that the GOP leaders did everything that they should have when they learned of the e-mails.</p>
<p>Gla, I disagree and it’s a shame that people can’t disagree without getting hostile on this board. I have as much right to an opinion and to questions as you do. I would like to know who had those IMs. Two things can be true at once. The republican leadership can be (and is) guilty of – actually, I don’t know yet what they’re guilty of, but I would like to know – AND someone else can be guilty of knowingly holding those IMs back. That’s not acceptable either.</p>
<p>“To imply that the Democratic leadership was sandbagging Foley is wild speculation.”</p>
<p>They should only have been so smart.</p>
<p>Hey, but why sandbag? This is the party of family values – of Bob Ney, Jack Abramoff, Rudi Giuliani, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley, and the Mullah Omar lover. (and the full Abramoff story has yet to break.)</p>
<p>Sorry Zoos, don’t mean to be hostile. Child abuse sort of upsets me. Yes, you have the right to whatever opinion you would like. You might want to know who had the IM’s, but I’m pretty sure no one on this board can give you that information. So your question is more rhetorical than sincere. But it is disengenuous of you to be saying you can’t see what the GOP leadership has done wrong and then imply that the Democrats were sitting on the IM’s waiting for a politically opportune moment to release them.</p>
<p>Gla, it wasn’t disingenuous. I would like to know. Please don’t attribute emotions or thoughts to me, ok? I think you’re a wonderful poster and I completely respect your opinions and don’t expect you to agree, but please read my posts as written.</p>