Resign, Mr. Speaker

The Washington Times ^ | 10/3/2007

[Taggart_D]

The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House from a Florida district until he resigned last week, constitute a disgrace for every Republican member of Congress. Red flags emerged in late 2005, perhaps even earlier, in suggestive and wholly inappropriate e-mail messages to underage congressional pages. His aberrant, predatory -- and possibly criminal -- behavior was an open secret among the pages who were his prey. The evidence was strong enough long enough ago that the speaker should have relieved Mr. Foley of his committee responsibilities contingent on a full investigation to learn what had taken place, whether any laws had been violated and what action, up to and including prosecution, were warranted by the facts. This never happened....

[bigjoesaddle]

If you kicked Folly out because of the mild E-Mails, you would have to kick out EVERY HOMOSEXUAL IN WASHINGTON, since 30% of all homosexuals have pedophile desires.

Calling for Hastert to resign because of the e-mails only is incredibly stupid, especially at this time.

.

[verity]

Controlling congress-critters in an election cycle is like herding cats.

[what's up]

If Hastert didn't know, he should have

Hogwash. Is Hastert supposed to know about every sexual affair, campaign finance indiscretion, etc. of every one of his 435 members?

Do you want him to spend any time dealing with Iran nukes? Or do you want him running after every personal email his congresspeople send?

You need to get smarter.

[dbehsman]

When you're in charge, you're responsible for the things nobody tells you about, too.

Wrong. Innocent people should not be punished for the misdeeds of others.

If Hastert didn't know, he should have.

I didn't know that being psychic was a prerequisite for a House leader.

Sorry, but there's no other way to ensure that bosses take their jobs seriously.

Going by this logic, then that would mean that since George Bush is the commander in chief, any time a member of the armed forces does something stupid/illegal, then Bush should get the blame.

[listenhillary]

"When you're in charge, you're responsible for the things nobody tells you about, too. If Hastert didn't know, he should have. Sorry, but there's no other way to ensure that bosses take their jobs seriously."

You've taken too many "stupid" pills today. Under your reasoning, Bush should resign because he didn't know what was going on.

[Uncle Vlad]

No Democrat will resign over this--ever.

[what's up]

It may not be a bad idea. Lets say he announces he is innocent but understands that some folks may doubt this

Nonsense. That's like saying George Bush should step aside for awhile and be investigation because there are some who believe he lied about the Iraq war.

Hastert stepping aside for any period of time would be perceived as an admission of guilt. He is not guilty in any way, shape or form and should not bow to the pressure.

[Hydroshock]

He should have been forced out after the Jefferson affair. Now this. And I still do not think we are getting the whole story on what happened and who knew what when. It is time for him to go.

[dbehsman]

That's not a bad idea. Although I don't think he should resign, it would defuse the situation. And the Republicans would have to SWEAR THAT THEY WILL RAISE HOLY HELL IF ANY STINKING DEAMOCRAT CAN'T LIVE UP TO THE HIGH STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE SET!

The problem is though that we have too many wussies in the party that would wet their pants if they had to hold up a democRAT to any standard.

[what's up]

That's "be investigated" not "be investigation".

My eyes are not working this morning.

[elc]

I'm not saying Hastert should resign (yet) - but he did originally claim to not have seen even the emails. He then later admitted he had seen them.

So now, I'm supposed to believe him when he says he only saw emails and not the IMs? There's something rotten up on the hill.

[OESY]

Another Shake-Up?
10/02 11:25 PM

I thought we already had the House GOP shake-up when Tom DeLay was pushed from office and Roy Blunt lost the race for Majority Leader. Now we have to dump Dennis Hastert too? I remember when Newt Gingrich had to go, only to be replaced by Bob Livingston, but then he had to go, too. I remember when Trent Lott was pushed from office, replaced by Bill Frist. And then I heard rumblings about how Frist had to go because, well, he was ineffective. Meanwhile, the Democrats hang tough, through thick and thin. They slobber all over Bill Clinton, who actually had sex with a 19-year-old intern and abused his office and women left and right. William Jefferson, a Class-A crook, remains in office with no effort by his party to expel him because in a close election, Nancy Pelosi needs him. West Virginia’s Alan Mollohan has become wealthy in office, apparently helping to funnel money to his favorite causes. Sen. Bob Menendez apparently rented property to a nonprofit agency which he helped to receive federal funds. Cynthia McKinney assaulted a police officer, and she wasn't expelled. (The voters fired her.) John Murtha was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal, yet is now touted as the future House Democrat leader. And the media's favorite Republican, John McCain, was caught up in the Keating Five scandal. We have leakers, womanizers, boozers, and anti-Semites in Congress, not to mention Ted Kennedy. And I could go on and on.

Oh yes, I hear we conservatives are better than the liberals, and that we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. But throwing Republican leaders overboard to prove the point without sufficient information is no standard at all. It may make pundits more comfortable and may attract praise from unlikely circles, but it doesn't make us better than liberals. In fact, it doesn't make us better people, period. What we need is information. Most of us only learned about the Foley communications last Friday. Demanding Hastert’s head tonight, as I said in an earlier post, is irresponsible. Among other things, we need to know who was aware of these three-year-old instant messages, only to make them public at a time of enormous help to the House Democrats. Clearly Foley wasn’t the only one exploiting these teenagers.

I’ve been around Washington too long to know that scandals of this sort don’t just happen. Just ask Karl Rove and Lewis Libby. Three years later, most of us are appalled at the Fitzgerald investigation. But when Libby was indicted, many dismissed questions about the investigation as irrelevant to the charges.

-- Mark Levin, http://levin.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWY1NzY0NzM2YjM0ZmY3OWU2MjBhYjFlZjcyN2RmNTQ=

[Texas4ever]

YES! Absolutely correct......Who knew and when?

[longtermmemmory]

We have an organized VIRAL PR CAMPAIGN HERE.

NOBODY IS asking why Pelosi sat on the INSTANT MESSAGES for THREE YEARS!

(emails said nothing, only instant messages had sex content)
REMEMBER FOLKS THE CLINTON WAR ROOM IS BACK UP AND RUNNING!

ALL THESE STORIES ARE BEING CENTRALLY PUSHED.


Dont forget Pedesta has a his DC think tank to push this VIRAL PR covert efforts. This is why we have trolls here who intentionally confuse instant messages with emails.

These are the people who would have replaced George Washington with Benedict Arnold.

[dbehsman]

And that's why Mark Levin is referred to as "the great one".

[1234]

...kick out EVERY HOMOSEXUAL IN WASHINGTON, since 30% of all homosexuals have pedophile desires.

agree w/your stats, but guess u can't boot'em 'til u've got clear indicators/evidence, as in foleey's 'luv notes' of late last yr..

[Texas4ever]

THANK YOU...I THOUGHT I SMELLED A RAT.


WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ASK THE QUESTION?

WHEN DID THE DEMOCRATS KNOW ABOUT THIS? FULL INVESTIGATION

[what's up]

He then later admitted he had seen them

Are you sure? I believe his office was notified of them but did not see them.

[G Larry]

Get off it!!!!

He wasn't aware of the IM's!!

Further, the more inocuous e-mails he was aware of caused him to tell Foley to stop.
Foley lied to him and said he'd stopped.

You'd have the conservatives resign for every measure they're short of perfection while the lib's live up to their lack of values!!!

[Raycpa]

That's like saying George Bush should step aside for awhile and be investigation because there are some who believe he lied about the Iraq war.

Good point but there are some distinct differences.

First, Bush is not accused of ignoring a threat to our safety while Hastert is accused of ignoring a threat to the safety of children placed under our trust. Even if Bush lied (which he didn't of course) he did for purposes that were intended to protect us. However, if Hastert lied (which he did not of course) the only explanation is he did this to protect his own self and other GOP members at the risk of the well being of children.

The second distinction is that Bush didn't make a call to investigate the so called lies he is accused of while Hastert himself believes a crime may have been committed.