ABC's catch on this is forcing me to rethink my boycott of them after the Path to 9/11. Maybe a one night hiatus compromise. I would bet they get higher ratings on this piece than the Path got. Please let them get higher viewership. Where better for America to take off her MickeyMouse mantra hats than ABC.
Posted by mainsailset at October 1, 2006 04:40 PMI will not be re-thinking anything about ABC or ABC News. I am still not convinced this business is going to go anywhere, nor the Democrats able to stick it to their opposition. When the Dems start firing back, they will need coverage in the MSM. They have not had it before; I see no reason why it will start now.
Brian Ross has a history of covering sex-related stories. He is a decent reporter. I do not associate him with much political reporting however.
The Hastert press release today is an effort at what I predicted the other day. The Republicans are trying to gel behind a single version of their story (and cannot), so they are going to try and lose everyone in the peculiar machinations of Congressional procedures. They are also putting out the idea that there was no crime (despite Glenn Greenwald's analysis that there is a crime and Foley helped write the law that makes it one). And the predictably they are also raising the Ghost of Clinton past, and also Mr. Studds, the Democrat who, after censure for similar behavior, stood for re-election and won.
I agree that Republicans are the Party of Crash and Burn; who cannot protect anybody let alone the homeland, but who insist on crashing the country and burning us all---but the entire narrative is not out there yet and it won't be until the MSM decides to quit being scribes for the Cheney Administration.
Posted by cromulant at October 1, 2006 05:06 PMWoodward was devastating. He played tapes of Cheney. He has tapes of many of his sources. He is, Bush-gushing previous books considered, an American Icon who, with Carl Bernstein, brought down Nixon. His words have weight with the American public and believe me, he basically called Bush out as a liar on CBS tonite. I am amazed this was actually broadcast, and the White House will attack with all it has, but they cannot refute Woodward.....he's got the evidence to back up his book and he has the confidence of the American people.
Add Foley to this and sit back and watch the GOPers spin, spin, spin.
After blowing smoke up Bush's butt for six years, Woodward has seen the light. So what?
Too many people have died, too much money has been spent, too much crediblity has been lost, too much damage has been done, too much support has been squandered, all while Woodward was playing footsie with the most corrupt, incompetent, politically-motivated administration in our history.
So now we are supposed to cannonize this media whore for exposing the obvious? Give me a break! I'd rather suck snot out of a dead cow's nose.
Posted by PretzelsOne at October 1, 2006 05:18 PMHastert's referral of the matter to the Justice Department will put the lid on it. Every single Republican will answer any and all questions with "I'd like to address that but I can't. It's a matter of a pending criminal investigation."
Democrats will do nothing about this and will go along with the "I can't comment." If any Democrat does say anything, he or she will be condemned by every Republican and probably a few Democrats for "commenting on a pending criminal investigation."
The corporate press/media will accept the Republicans' response and move on. Stories will be held until after the election. The Republicans will not even have to ask them to do so, they will just do it.
The story will be gone by next Sunday.
Posted by James E. Powell at October 1, 2006 05:23 PMNobody gives a shit about Foley and his teeny bopper love elves in Congress! The American folksies who lather in the blather of the MSM don't know what to absorb, what to process; they know what they're told, by Fox, CNN and the other station... Nobody in this country reads anymore! I'm only concerned about a statistic I heard this morning at a fundraiser for a Dem runnning for Congress here in Ginny. Aff Mericans and Spans are dropping out of high school at an alarming rate all over the country thanks to Leave No Child Behind program.
With that, is more crime; nobody wins in this war.
Posted by Mal Feasance at October 1, 2006 05:38 PMAmen, James. Amen. You have to admit, though, it's a great ploy by the Republicans. Just keep the lid on until after the election. After that, none of it will matter, and once again we will have been snookered. Such a shame. Such a tragedy.
Posted by PretzelsOne at October 1, 2006 05:41 PMSaw the Woodward 60 Minutes story here on the east coast. It's Kissinger re-fighting the Viet Nam war angle that is prevailing in the Cheney administration's mind....scary shit for certain. Nothing really surprising to me that I hadn't already seen on these internets...Laura Bush no Rummy fan, Abizaid's private agreement with Murtha on Iraq, Rummy and Condi infighting on the Iraq strategy, Bush the Senior pissed off about Iraq invasion big time and who knows if he's told Junior but he has confided this to Scowcroft...not that it would matter because he obviously doesn't even listen to Laura, his wife.
Maybe the only thing new to me was the fact that Woodward, unlike his previous books about Bush Jr., wasn't able to personally interview Junior for this one. The other thing I found revealing was it appeared that Andy Card tried to manage/influence a delusional adminstration to see reality and change course in Iraq (get Rummy out)...perhaps that is why he is no longer part of the administration? Cheney keeps Rummy on board because he fears if Rummy goes it means he's next. Too bad Mike Wallace wasn't quick enough on his feet and didn't ask Woodward if that would mean that Cheney would then fire himself?
Posted by emal at October 1, 2006 06:05 PMIf the Democrats regain the House next month, Hasert would be gone anyway.
The real story here is the FBI is now involved to determine if Foley violated any Federal law(s.)
Stay tuned.
Posted by Christopher at October 1, 2006 06:10 PMNo way, man. The whole thing's horseshit--paradox told us so.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 1, 2006 06:14 PMD'oh remembered another insight into the scary inner mind of the pretzeldent in the Woodward interview. Woodward states Bush (who Bob refers to as the Cheerleader-in-Chief) says Junior says he isn't leaving Iraq even if Laura and Barney (his dog)are the only remaining supporters of his.
It's comments from a very childish and emotionally immature Bush that really make me say, could we please have adults running the whitehouse again...Please.
Posted by emal at October 1, 2006 06:28 PMI love the comment by Wallace when he asked Woodward if the old man "had talked to the boy?" What an insult.
James, you got it exactly right.
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2006 06:51 PMLet's consider what we wish for:
Cheney is one adult-type I don't want running the government.
I distinguish between ABC News and ABC/Disney Entertainment.
I am back to ABC news but still stay away from ABC/Disney Entertainment.
I have heard that the GOP's next election scare tactic would be ads asking if we want that San Francisco Democrat, NANCY PELOSI, as Speaker of the House. Guess Hastert's coverup of the Foley thing is like a bucket of cold water on that ad campaign.
While the Foley/Boy Page/Sex Scandal may take down the GOP House leadership, I would rather do it by election.
ELECT DEMOCRATS TO CONGRESS
Posted by CLK at October 1, 2006 06:52 PM"Junior says he isn't leaving Iraq even if Laura and Barney (his dog)are the only remaining supporters of his."
Translated: It makes no difference to me what the facts are, or who has insights into the War that I don't have, or who has more experience than I do, I am not changing my mind. Dr. Death is whispering in his ear, and unlike VietNam, he is not going to be pressured by anyone. Bush needs to be removed from the WH as he is totally insane.
I, for one, think it's time for an independent counsel to investigate this republi-con sex scandal. 13 months worth. Every night as the lead story on the news. $42 million dollars worth.
Posted by phidipides at October 1, 2006 07:13 PMThe party of hypocrisy!
Posted by Seven of Six at October 1, 2006 07:17 PMAmerica: vote Democratic and "take down" the Republican House leadership all by yourself, without them having to do anything!
No ethics committees, no delayed AG investigations---just vote against Republicans and they're OUT!
You really are permitted to vote against an incompetent, corrupt, bankrupt political party, even though they have been in the majority for a very long time, and most of them have that very nice blow-dried helmet of silver hair.
Posted by euzoius at October 1, 2006 07:34 PMI want to see them all convicted and sentenced. Maybe we can torture them first to get the truth.
Posted by Judith at October 1, 2006 07:40 PM"They couldn't protect us against Al Qaeda.
They can't protect our soldiers in Iraq.
Now, they can't protect children in the halls of Congress."
It's clear. All the Republicans desire is to retain power. Nothing else matters.
Posted by Right Fools at October 1, 2006 08:39 PMTrying to avoid FEMA type faux pas, the republican leadership enlisted a bona fide expert to co-author the Adam Walsh legislation.
Who will resign for the rest of the mistakes?
Posted by TIKI AL at October 1, 2006 08:56 PMI love the comment by Wallace when he asked Woodward if the old man "had talked to the boy?"
Hahahahahahaha!
Posted by Christopher at October 2, 2006 03:21 AMYou know, it is difficult to talk about those "cut and run" Democrats five weeks before the elections when you are distracted by a pedophile.
Isn't it interesting that six years of corruption, deceit, lying, fraud, stolen elections and criminal behavior have been given a pass, but good old sex just might be the one issue that takes down 'a few not so good men?' It has always amazed me how some men will throw away a lifetime of work for a piece of you know what.
Posted by Judith at October 2, 2006 03:56 AMHastert was so forceful in telling the country about the Democrats wanting to "coddle terrorists", yet now it is appears that Hastert didn't mind "coddling" a sexual predator. Burn in hell Hastert.
Posted by Judith at October 2, 2006 04:23 AMWhat happened to those "family values?" Wonder why the trolls aren't chimming in on this one.
Foley's obsession with 16- and 17-year-old male pages has been known to Republicans on Capitol Hill for at least five years.
But other than issue a warning, little else seems to have been done about the congressman.
A former page has come forward to tell ABC News warnings were issued about Foley to the pages in 2001.
Matthew Loraditch says pages were told to watch out for Foley.
"It was a slight cautionary statement, you know, 'Don't get too wrapped up in him being too nice to you and all that kind of stuff.' You know, 'He's a nice guy, but he's a little bid odd,' and that sort of thing," Loraditch said.
ABC News has obtained Internet messages sent by Foley to three different pages after that warning.
Two of them were sent to pages in the 2001-2002 class, with sexually explicit messages, most too graphic to be broadcast, from Foley using the screen name Maf54.
Maf54: To be honest, I am a little to interested in you. So that's why I need to back off a little.
Teen: Ya slow things down a little im still young…like under 18. don't want to do anything illegal…im not 18.
Maf54: cool..dont forget to measure for me.
A reference to his request that the page provide the measurements of his sexual organ, a request he repeatedly made to another page as well.
Hey Foley, measure this. You are probably going to spend some time in prison, and running to a drug center isn't going to save your sorry ass.
Posted by Judith at October 2, 2006 05:41 AMIt has always amazed me how some men will throw away a lifetime of work for a piece of you know what.
Judith, Judith. Have you any IDEA of how rare it must be for some of these pervs to get anything in a legitimate way? Especially if they're (1) gay and (2) a prominent member of a political party that demonizes gays.
Guy probably chanted "gays = pervs" so long and loudly that he started to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Posted by sagesource at October 2, 2006 05:52 AMFoley is being admitted to rehab for alcoholism. Sexually pursuing subordinates is wrong. When those subordinates are minors it's criminal. However, these young men were of an age eligible to marry in many, many states. They're of an age millions of their peers are engaging in sex with nary more than a sideways glance by their parents and an admonition to use contraceptives. At least some of the outrage over this isn't because of the ages or positions of the parties involved. It's because the potential sexual liasons would have been homosexual in nature. Now Foley wants to infer his homosexuality and desires to act on it are the result of a chemical dependency? If you're gay it can't be natural or right, it's because you're an alcoholic and suffer from resultant behavior problems? 50 year old men bedding teenage boys probably isn't the best example of idyllic love. I do have to ask though, if a 50 year old man bedded an emancipated 17 year old girl and then married her would the ensuing kerfuffle last but more than a few days? Certainly no criminal charges or investigations would result. And more than a few of the man's friends would think to themselves "Goddamn, I'd give one of my nuts to be in his position for even a few weeks!". Bottom line, Foley seeking to excuse his behavior by entering rehab smears the gay community at least in some small way. He wanted sex with a young man, just like many men his age would kill to have sex with a young woman. Their desires are tolerated and sometimes accepted because they're hetero in nature. Foley chose the "wrong" sex to feel strongly about.
Steve's exactly right: although the "young" part looks bad, it's really the "gay" part that is going to give the GOP fits. That's a bad thing, but it's happening in large part because the GOP decided it would be a good idea to run as the homophobic party.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 2, 2006 07:04 AMI would disagree with the wording of "can't" protect. The Rep demonstrate a choice here that they "won't" protect. Protecting citizens is not the priority their choices demonstrate.
Damning example is that in January when Foley was elected into the leadership poisition to chair the childrens' internet porn committe the House Leadership already knew that he was demonstrating the actions of a pediphile. So, this does not stop at Foley's emails or IM's, this does not stop at leaderships inactions to investigate, nor inaction to protect a minor child under its roof, nor to stop Foley in his tracks, nor to remove him from leadership, no this demonstrates a power fueled, morally skewed attitude similar to Bush's taking this country to war, SIMPLY BECAUSE HE/THEY CAN.
Posted by mainsailset at October 2, 2006 08:40 AMthe republican party is one repulsive pile of shit..kinda gives you the heebie jeebies..
Posted by dennis at October 2, 2006 11:44 AMcondi doesn't recall...hastert didn't have a clue..the fraud in the white house is insane and is on a crusade..we say screw the geneva convention..sexual torture condoned..how in god's name did we get here?
Posted by dennis at October 2, 2006 11:57 AM