AJ at Strata-Sphere has been working on a time-line of events in the Mark Foley scandal.
Today he has deconstructed a post in the Washington Post, which clearly shows that Democrats knew about the inappropriate Foley emails as early as November of 2005:
Again, more confirmation from WaPo that (a) a Democrat operative was the source of the less salacious emails and (b) this story was shopped from November 2005 to August 2006.
Ever since ABC News broke the story about the Foley scandal, Democrats — especially the foaming-at-the-mouth Rep. from California, Nancy Pelosi — have been lunging at their leashes trying to implicate the Republican leadership (especially House Speaker Dennis Hastert [R-IL]) in a cover-up.
This could still play out.
I don’t doubt that there are some Republicans who either knew or should have known something was wrong and that it needed to be thoroughly investigated, rather than covered up.
Anybody who sat on knowledge of Mr. Foley’s predation on young men in the Page program and did nothing about it allowed other pages to remain at risk from Mr. Foley. This includes any Republicans who knew. And they should be exposed and ousted from office.
But it looks like the outrageous indignation gushing from the Left side of the House is full of hypocrisy: The Dems knew too, and they sat on it. The Republicans sat on the story to protect one of their own (and their own political interests). The Dems sat on it for political leverage, to maximize the damage to the Republican party as close to the November elections as possible; the promised “October Surprise”.
But both sides knew about Foley’s inappropriate behavior. And both sides, with their own sick agendas for sitting on it, allowed young Pages to remain at risk from predation from Mr. Foley.
_____________
What this DNC source is saying is the Democrats and CREW were supposed to conceal the Foley risk even longer than they did! This means the Dems were going to allow Foley to continue his efforts to prey on young men so that they could have an election year scandal to sweep them into office.
Good Lt at The Jawa Report:
The truth starts to emerge almost two weeks from day one. AJ thinks the WaPo is trying to get out ahead of some devastating news that may be coming soon. Pelosi’s outrage brigade, Democrat operatives and their willing accomplices in the news media knew about Foley for a long time (as far back as November of last year) and did nothing (as was suspected). It doesn’t exonerate Foley in the least, but it does implicate the Democrats quite directly.
Yep. But don’t hold your breath waiting for Rep. Pelosi to demand a full investigation into “who knew what and when did they know it” from her side of the political aisle.
Hugh Hewitt and Townhall are looking at this story too:
The Strata-Sphere has background on how the Foley affair was peddled by Dems to MSM for months, but as with Florida newspapers, the e-mails which launched the scandal did not seem like news to many, many MSM eyes.
The entire House needs to be flushed, Democrats and Republicans alike. Our country deserves good and honest people representing us in Congress. And it doesn’t look like there are too many currently holding office that fit that bill.
______________
MORE:
Flopping Aces boils it down:
Listen, there has been no evidence submitted that Foley EVER had sex with an underage male. Unlike some Democrats in the past, cough Studds [retired Democratic Congressman for Massachusetts Gerry Studds] cough.
While the fact that he went after 18 year old men is creepy, just as it would be if he was going after 18 year old women, the fact of the matter is that he broke no law, cough Jefferson [Rep. William Jefferson (D — LA)] cough. He did the right thing by resigning immediately, cough Jefferson cough…..sorry, getting a cold I gather.
But all this story boils down to is a 50+ year old gay male having a thing for young MEN.
I’ll say it again, creepy and deserving of losing his job, but this story does not deserve to be highlighted over the fact that a Congressmen is under investigation on actual CRIMINAL charges and was found with bribe money in his freezer…
Again, more confirmation from WaPo that (a) a Democrat operative was the source of the less salacious emails and (b) this story was shopped from November 2005 to August 2006
AND NOBODY WOULD PRINT IT!
This is totally off the subject, but looks like the US invasion has killed more innocent lives than during the Saddam era. What a way to fight the war on terror.
Anon-
Just to be clear the study does not attribute these deaths entirely to the US military but to the conditions resulting from the invasion.
My point is that what we did made things worse for the Iraqi people in the long run. At least under the Saddam leadership, they had running water and food. We underestimated the hatred between the people living there. 600,000 in 3 years. i wonder how many more there will die in the next 4 years, since that seems to be the earliest that the US might be able to pull out of Iraq, if everything goes well. Then after that, its on to N. Korea, maybe Iran.
I agree with your general point (though the specific number of Iraqis killed as a result of the US invasion can’t be known.)
It brings to mind: Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy
Preston and Anon — I’m surprised that two guys as smart as you just accepted that ridiculous 665K number without question or skepticism.
Consider all the links from this post:
If you only read one thing about the fake study, read the piece from Omar Fadil — who lives in Iraq. This quote from Omar pretty well sums up my thoughts on those asinine numbers you are referring to:
I almost choked on that one…
Yah, that Saddam was a fab leader. Thank goodness he did so many nobel things during his leadership. I bet someone, somewhere has nominated him for the peace prize for all the rapes, tortures, mass murders, live-burials, slavery, human trafficking, etc…, he so generously gave his people.
Maybe they’ll name a library after him.
Preston and Anon — I’m surprised that two guys as smart as you just accepted that ridiculous 665K number without question or skepticism.
Well, thanks for the complement but I thought I was clear that the number can’t be known. Still, the study is useful as a starting point- maybe the number is half that, maybe it is double.
Unless I misunderstand the study myself the thing that you and most conservatives seem to be unclear about is that the deaths are not necessarily violent:
According to the survey results, Iraq’s mortality rate in the year before the invasion was 5.5 deaths per 1,000 people; in the post-invasion period it was 13.3 deaths per 1,000 people per year. The difference between these rates was used to calculate “excess deaths.”
So the state of the hospitals and fact that we have not re-established the electrical network is as influential to these numbers as the roaming death squads and the ‘collateral damage’ inherent in using the world’s most powerful military.
In any case it seems terribly disingenuous for the right to question the methodology of this study while accepting it in other non-US-invasion arenas. It looks pretty sound on the face of it:
The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates.
The true test of the “success” of the Iraqi War is to be seen in the number of Iraqis that have left and are still leaving the country. More than a million and counting, leaving the country bereft of competent doctors, professors, and soon, a middle class. Add this to the numbers killed, and I think you have at least something like five per cent of the population that are either dead, or now living in other countries. One of the countries with the greatest percentage of displaced Iraqi refugees-Assad’s Syria. That tells you all you need to know.