"I'm Sasha and I approved this message."
U.S. Liberal Blogs
Canadian Blogs
More Pages Come Forward - Claiming Online Sexual Advances
The Foley scandel just keeps growing. ABC News is reporting three more pages have come forward with devastating stories about how they received online sexual advances. They also seem to bolster the reports that Foley was involved in this lurid activity as far back as 1998. The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002, and approached ABC on their tip line.
These congressional pages' stories show beyond a doubt, that Foley was totally out of control even back then. How in the world the Republican leadership going back as far as Tom Delay were unaware of this is beyond me."I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were," said the page in the 2002 class.He then went on to say he was told that if he was ever in Washington, he could stay at Foley's home if he agreed to engage in oral sex with him. The second page, also from the 2000 class said Foley would visit the page dorm and offer to take them to events in his BMW. He said the emails from Foley began to get sexually explicit even requesting photographs of his erect penis. The page from the class of 1998 said the emails to him started when he was a senior in high school, and when the IM's began to get more weird, he stopped responding to him. This activity did not take place in a vacuum and no one with half a brain can seriously believe as the Republican leadership has claimed, that they weren't aware of this until it made the news on ABC last week. Even if that is the case, they are at the very least guilty of gross negligance for not protecting the children they were responsible for. Read on.... |
posted by canuk at 6:10 p.m.
Comments on "More Pages Come Forward - Claiming Online Sexual Advances"
-
Anonymous said ... (7:01 p.m.) :
-
Anonymous said ... (6:03 p.m.) :
post a commentAt least liberals are finally
exhibiting a moral compass
about something. I am sure
that they'd be equally outraged
if Rep. Mark Foley were a
Democrat.
The object lesson of Foley's inappropriate e-mails to male pages is that
when a Republican congressman is caught in a sex scandal, he immediately
resigns and crawls off into a hole in abject embarrassment. Democrats get
snippy.
Foley didn't claim he was the victim of a "witch-hunt." He didn't whine that
he was a put-upon "gay American." He didn't stay in Congress and haughtily
rebuke his critics. He didn't run for re-election. He certainly didn't claim
he was "saving the Constitution." (Although his recent discovery that he has
a drinking problem has a certain Democratic ring to it.)
In 1983, Democratic congressman Gerry Studds was found to have sexually
propositioned House pages and actually buggered a 17-year-old male page whom
he took on a trip to Portugal. The 46-year-old Studds indignantly attacked
those who criticized him for what he called a "mutually voluntary, private
relationship between adults."
When the House censured Studds for his sex romp with a male page, Studds —
not one to be shy about presenting his backside to a large group of men —
defiantly turned his back on the House during the vote. He ran for
re-election and was happily returned to office five more times by liberal
Democratic voters in his Martha's Vineyard district. (They really liked his
campaign slogan: "It's the outfit, stupid.")
Washington Post columnist Colman McCarthy referred to Studds' affair with a
teenage page as "a brief consenting homosexual relationship" and denounced
Studds' detractors for engaging in a "witch-hunt" against gays: "New England
witch trials belong to the past, or so it is thought. This summer on Cape
Cod, the reputation of Rep. Gerry Studds was burned at the stake by a large
number of his constituents determined to torch the congressman for his
private life."
Meanwhile, Foley is hiding in a hole someplace.
No one demanded to know why the Democratic speaker of the House, Thomas
"Tip" O'Neill, took one full decade to figure out that Studds was
propositioning male pages.
But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security
Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that
Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.
Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an
inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager — oh also, we think he's gay.
Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds
that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that
guy — and a credit check, too!
When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails
from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial
nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their
e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to
resign.
But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did
not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging
in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his
birthday.
The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats
won't let us do to al-Qaida — solely because Foley was rumored to be gay.
Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we
tell them the terrorists are gay.
On Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" Monday night, Democrat Bob Beckel said a
gay man should be kept away from male pages the same way Willie Sutton
should have been kept away from banks. "If Willie Sutton is around some
place where a bank is robbed," Beckel said, "then you're probably going to
say, 'Willie, stay away from the robbery.'"
Hmmmm, let's search the memory bank. In July 2000, the New York Times
"ethicist" Randy Cohen advised a reader that pulling her son out of the Cub
Scouts because they exclude gay scoutmasters was "the ethical thing to do."
The "ethicist" explained: "Just as one is honor bound to quit an
organization that excludes African-Americans, so you should withdraw from
scouting as long as it rejects homosexuals."
We need to get a rulebook from the Democrats:
§ Boy Scouts: As gay as you want to be.
§ Priests: No gays!
§ Democratic politicians: Proud gay Americans.
§ Republican politicians: Presumed guilty.
§ White House press corps: No gays, unless they hate Bush.
§ Active-duty U.S. military: As gay as possible.
§ Men who date Liza Minelli: Do I have to draw you a picture, Miss
Thing?
This is the very definition of political opportunism. If Republicans had
decided to spy on Foley for sending overly friendly e-mails to pages,
Democrats would have been screaming about a Republican witch-hunt against
gays. But if they don't, they're enabling a sexual predator.
Talk to us Monday. Either we'll be furious that Republicans violated the
man's civil rights, or we'll be furious that they didn't
Poor Dr. Whome...still confused about the differences between homosexuality and pedophilia.
I don't give a damn about the fact that Foley is gay. I want him in prison for stalking children.
It is his pedophilia that concerns us liberals, and I can't for the life of me figure out why it doesn't concern Hastert and the other Repukes.