Comments on Foleygate?

Go to Naut's View - Add a comment - Go to Foleygate?

BrightIrish

thanks! I just wish more of your fellow Americans would agree with you...

posted by Nautikos on October 20, 2006 at 4:22 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

Hello .. You have expressed your views well and I agree with your thoughts on this matter. I'm completely amazed when peoples heads can be turned so easily from the real issues to be decided with our elections. Foley is a disgrace that should be handled as a different issue in a different venue. I felt the same when Monica and X President Clinton were being judged in the media. Everything has its place and all this throat cutting should be shown on a different page (IMHO).

posted by BrightIrish on October 19, 2006 at 10:21 AM | link to this | reply

Nana,

Thank you!

posted by Nautikos on October 15, 2006 at 5:44 PM | link to this | reply

Corbin,

I do agree with you, of course. That these kids were legally of the 'age of consent' simply proves again something we know anyway: that there is sometimes a divergence between legality and morality. Foley is a douche-bag, but there is something profoundly wrong with a political climate in which a basically insignificant affair like this can become the deciding factor in an election.

posted by Nautikos on October 15, 2006 at 5:43 PM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

well said! 

posted by Nanaroo on October 15, 2006 at 6:48 AM | link to this | reply

How you doing Naut.....

Interesting post......

Two Points:  

1. legally, none of the pages in the messages were underage.....in DC the age of consent is 16....no charges have been brought because of that point.

2.  Democratic operative held on the the information for almost 3 years in one case, and since  August of 05 in others.  Even members of the press had the info and said they were distracted by hurricane katrina....and was to busy to bring it up.  Are they not just as guilty of being enablers as the GOPers being accosted?

That said....Folly is a slimeball and deserves the humiation he is receiving. 

But the witchhunt being conducted is a most disengenious one at best........

 

posted by Corbin_Dallas on October 15, 2006 at 6:43 AM | link to this | reply

LeRoy,

I agree! Despicable as the guy is, the Dems (and the media!) are milking this for far more than its worth, for purely political reasons!

posted by Nautikos on October 14, 2006 at 1:59 PM | link to this | reply

Naut, here's the thing

     I'll go ahead and say it: this Foley thing is hysteria.  Pedophiles are a certain percentage of the population, eveyone knows this.  You can go online and find the current residences of thousands and thousands of convicted child molesters across the U.S.  It's no surprise that some end up in congress.  The number 1 occupation of child molestors is school teacher.  Should I vote against have a school system too?

posted by LeRoyCoyote on October 14, 2006 at 12:53 PM | link to this | reply

Wiley,

the only problem with your suggestion is that he would probably enjoy that...

posted by Nautikos on October 12, 2006 at 4:08 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

As a recovered alcoholic of 39+ years of sobriety, I believe I shall forthwith stop referring to myself in that way.

He has made even alcoholism a perversion equal to his own. He knows nothing of alcoholism nor morality.

Sobriety won't correct what he is, incarceration just might, by making him the butt of big Bubba.

posted by WileyJohn on October 11, 2006 at 9:38 PM | link to this | reply

bel

I hadn't heard they were considering that, but I agree, it would be a pity! But it wouldn't bother me one bit seeing these guys tarred and feathered!

posted by Nautikos on October 11, 2006 at 5:11 AM | link to this | reply

It's a shame

they are considering doing away with the page program because of this.  I would prefer that they did away with the pedofiles instead.  Foley makes me sick to my stomach and anyone who covered this up should end up in a cell next him.  I don't care what party they are with.  These are our lawmakers and should be help to a higher standard for that reason.  If they won't hold themselves to that standard then we as citizens need to hold them accountable.

posted by bel_1965 on October 11, 2006 at 4:44 AM | link to this | reply

Blacnche.

well, bon appetit, and I'm off to beddy-byes, it's been a long day...

posted by Nautikos on October 10, 2006 at 6:57 PM | link to this | reply

I beg to differ, Nautikos, on the issue of whether it is pointless to argue

whether it was justified to go into Iraq.  That issue, I'm hoping, will be addressed in due time by investigators far less biased than those in power now.  I'm patiently awaiting a more fair and balanced justice system, and hearings. In due time, due process may take its course.

So, it's a two-fold approach, get a newer, fresher broom to sweep up the mess in Iraq and examine what went wrong. History will be the judge of George W. Bush, and i'm afraid it's not going to be kind to him.  The facts, however, are not completely in. In the meantime, yes, it's an acute crisis.  So, best to staunch the bleeding before probing the wound. 

As for Iran, Israel, and N. Korea. I'll leave that for another day and go fix dinner. Good night, Nautikos.  It's a pleasure chatting with you.

posted by Blanche. on October 10, 2006 at 6:46 PM | link to this | reply

And just one other thing,

the whole debate about whether or not it was justified to go into Iraq in the first place is rather pointless at this stage of the game. The only important issue is, what we are we going to do now, since we are there?

posted by Nautikos on October 10, 2006 at 6:42 PM | link to this | reply

Blanche.

if you don't like the war in Iraq, you'd absolutely hate a war in Iran! Iraq is a Sunday stroll in the park compared to what you'd see there!

I can't imagine anyone in the Pentagon seriously considering that. There are only two realistic solutions: a) make them give up the bomb voluntarily or b) take out their facilities with targeted air strikes. a) may be difficult if they just don't wanna, and b) may be difficult because they have of course considered that possibility and probably have things well underground and dispersed.

And who would actually do it? Quite possibly Israel!

But you know, the real danger we're facing in the case of both Iran and N Korea is that they will slip a little fissionable material (it doesn't have to be a bomb) into the hands of al-Qaeda or some other Islamo-fascist terror group... 

Oh, and Canada didn't send troops into Iraq, although we have quite a few in Afghanistan.

posted by Nautikos on October 10, 2006 at 6:35 PM | link to this | reply

Well, I'm relieved to hear that Seattle is not in imminent danger of N.

Korea's nuclear proliferation. I take that rather personally, you see.  I don't have my 2000 sunblock, as Linda Hamilton said in Terminator 2.  I think our generation is a little bit in denial and become overly complacent about the nuclear threat, from having lived under the mushroom cloud for so long, it feels like home.

However, I have to ask, why are "our" troops (I'm not sure of the number of Canadian troops in Iraq at the moment, but I know that they are there, and sadly, suffering casualties as welll), not more profitably used in Iran?  Or, since there is a permanent military base in S. Korea, why aren't there more troops displayed there as a "show of force" if diplomatic channels have failed? 

The threat in Iraq is primarily of our own creation. There was no Muslim power vaccum  until we ousted Saddam Huseein, and please, do not tell me what a horrible monster he was to his own people. Since when has the West particularly given a damn about the tyrants they have themselves armed and installed, as Reagan did Hussein. As Winston Churchill once said about another tin pot dictator, "He may be a dirty bastard, but he's our dirty bastard."  So, given that Al Qaeda was not a threat until Iraq was destroyed by Coalition forces, for what? Not to search for Bin Laden, he was never there, there were no WMDs or uranium from Niger, too many independent sources, including the latest Intelligence reports confirm this. 

So, what then, given the more pressing issues, are we still doing in Iraq, other than to try to mop up the vacuum that has been created by Coalition bombs and the terrorist training camps, which were not there until we pissed off the extremists. YOu talk about stirring up a hornet's nest, we took a stick of dynamite and stuck it one. 

posted by Blanche. on October 10, 2006 at 5:52 PM | link to this | reply

Blanche.

I have by no means forgotten about N Korea or Iran , but simply chose to deal with Iraq first and separately, because the situation there is rather different from the others. Besides, I am a simple guy, I can only deal with one issue at a time, .

The most important difference is that we are in Iraq, but we are neither in N Korea nor Iran.

The second important difference is that it’s not likely we’re ever going to find ourselves in either country with our troops. (I say ‘ours’ although they’re of course yours, but you kow what I mean.)

‘The army’ is not going to do anything there. Again, let me deal with one issue, Iran, and bracket N Korea for the moment. And I want to quote myself, something from my very first post, back in January, which was read by four people, I think.

"We can take it as a given that Iran is on the road to develop a nuclear bomb. I’ll be happy to sell the Brooklyn Bridge to anyone who doubts that, and throw in the Eiffel Tower and the Taj Mahal for free. Like other nations before them, such as India, Pakistan, North Korea and, yes, Israel, Iran also appears to operate on the basis of a ‘given’: namely that human beings in general, and the major world powers in particular, are reluctant to reverse a fait accompli. It simply takes too much effort. Thus, if through a process involving drawn-out ‘negotiations’, liberally laced with obstruction, obfuscation, prevarication and, of course, the concealment of the physical evidence Iran can buy the time necessary to achieve its goal, it will do so.

There was a time when the threat of sanctions, i.e. severe economic penalties authorized and applied through the UN, might have persuaded Iran to desist, since even the Mullahs fear a hungry populace. The West, after two years of fruitless talks appears ready, however belatedly, to finally bring the matter before the Security Council. Russia and China, both members of the counsel, deny even now the usefulness of sanctions as a means to curb Tehran’s ambitions. It is possible that such sanctions would dampen Ahmadinejad’s enthusiasm for adventure even at this stage. But the threat of such measures can be effective only if it is credible, and given the history as well as the current spectacle of the indecisiveness of the world’s powers, their credibility is low.

But it may be too late anyway. Even if the matter were brought up at the Security Council immediately, by the time any sanctions were applied and had taken effect, Iran’s bomb might well be completed.

It is clear that the West’s procrastinating has led to a point where there may be no longer a good way out of an untenable situation. On the one hand, Europe as much as the US is loath to further stir the Islamic hornets’ nest. With the rapidly growing Muslim populations in Britain, France and Germany, that is now becoming a domestic as well as a foreign policy problem. On the other hand, there may soon be a clear and imminent danger of a catastrophe befalling Israel. If Iran remains intransigent, Israel will be forced to act. Fasten your seat belts."

The penultimate sentence there is the key one.

N Korea? Different again, but in any case, I don't think you need to wory about a Korean nuclear missile coming down on Seattle. That's not what that's about. The real danger is an entirely diffrent one. But, as I said, one thing at a time.

 

posted by Nautikos on October 10, 2006 at 5:30 PM | link to this | reply

Is the intent then, Nautikos, to "win Vietnam by proxy"?

Henry Kissinger is a key advisor to the Administration.  Getting stuck in another quagmire, hemorrhaging lives, will not bring back those who've lost their loved ones already. Although, no sacrifice is in vain. 

However, staying the course is easy for us "armchair strategists" to say, I prefer to listen to the counsel of actual generals, and corporals on the ground, and Scoop.  Retreat is not a disgrace, it's a way of marshaling resources. And we cannot afford to let pride sacrifice lives unnecessarily.

The plan (as much as there has ever been a plan) was to bring th eIraqis up to speed, and have them take over, exit graceuflly.

Getting out, one way or another, in an orderly fashion is paramount, it's not necessarily our job to be the world's policeman.  There are more pressing matters that the army could and should be attending to, namely Iran and N. Korea. Woops, forgot those, didn't we?  Now Il Kim Jong is pouting, and offering to sell nukes to the highest bidder and there goes the nuclear non-proliferation. 

Let's take care of first things first, Iran is a bigger threat than Iraq ever was and the Democrats agreed under duress in a time of grave crisis, after 9-11, there isnt' a "blank checkbook", to continue on indefinitely. Even businesses review their goals and evaluate their success, if not profitable, as Iraq is clearly not, it's time to cut our losses.

posted by Blanche. on October 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM | link to this | reply

Blanche.

okay! Now that we can  dispense with the Foley issue as irrelevant (at least you and I can, I realize that it will remain a hot topic among the talking heads and spinmeisters, right up to the election), we can talk about the important issues.  

For now, let me just deal with the Iraq question (and remember that the Dems fully supported the war on Saddam), giving you my reasons for staying the course, as posted on a previous occasion.

America cannot afford a defeat, for geopolitical reasons as well as for psychological ones.

a) An Iraq in which the moderate forces have not been sufficiently strengthened will fall prey to radical Jihadist Islamo-fascism.

b) An Islamo-fascist Iraq will increase the threat to Israel and the whole region.

c) The risk that the smaller states in the region, and particularly Saudi Arabia, would face and succumb to insurgencies would increase significantly.

d) Having one of the world’s major oil producing areas in the hands of Islamic radicals would have major implications for the entire world, not just the United States.

e) The credibility of the United States would suffer grievously, possibly encouraging rogue states to enter upon adventures they would not dare to engage in today.

f) A second ‘Vietnam’ would have serious results for the self-confidence and view of the world of the American people. It might well lead to a revival of the Monroe doctrine or some new version thereof, with dire consequences for the entire West.

g) Instead of helping Iraq fight an insurgency, in the future America might well be forced into a much wider conflict to protect her interests.

This was part of an earlier post this summer, and I haven't seen any good reasons for changing my position, in spite of the clear fact that things do not look good.

Let's engage in a little 'thought experiment': if the Germans and Japanese had engaged in protracted guerilla warfare after '45, would there have been a widespread demand to 'bring the boys home'? I don't think so. But something has happened since then. For many reasons, much of the American public has lost its resolve...

posted by Nautikos on October 10, 2006 at 5:09 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos, well, there you go, another quid pro quo, Dems v. Republicans

sex scandal. You got me there. I've never heard of Studds (apt name or not) and I have to reiterate my posiition, that, although the rampant pedophilia and sexual imbroglios of Congressmen abusingn their authority and committing statutory rape on the government dime i s apparently a bipartisan affair:  I WANT TO SEE THAT THE US GETS THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ and if we as a nation can get our minds out of everybody's tighty whiteys and focus on the economy, ending the war, and making sure that N. Korea doesn't nuke Seattle, I will be satisfied.

The Republicans seem hellbent on getting us nuked, so I'd say let the Dems at least try to rein in the Apocalypse Now doomsayers who want to hasten the apocalypse.  I am not ready to go up flames.  So, Foley, Studds, whoever, I just do not give a shit. 

posted by Blanche. on October 10, 2006 at 12:08 AM | link to this | reply

Nana,

Thanks. Can't say I'm immune to compliments...

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 8:28 PM | link to this | reply

Blanche.

I thought it might be of interest to you what Charles Krauthammer has to say in the Weekly Standard:

"IN 1983, REPRESENTATIVE GERRY Studds, Democrat of Massachusetts, admitted to having sex with a 17-year-old male page. He was censured by the House of Representatives. During the vote, which he was compelled by House rules to be present for, Studds turned his back on the House to show his contempt for his colleagues' reprimand. He was not expelled from the Democratic Caucus. In fact, he was his party's nominee in the next election in his district--and the next five after that--winning reelection each time. He remained in the bosom of the Democratic Caucus in the House for the next 13 years.

In 2006, Republican congressman Mark Foley was found to have been engaged in lurid sexual Internet correspondence with a 16-year-old House page. There is no evidence yet of his ever laying a hand on anyone, let alone having sex with a page. When discovered, he immediately resigned. Had he not, says Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert, "I would have demanded his expulsion." Not only is Foley gone, but half the Republican House leadership has been tarred. Hastert himself came within an inch of political extinction.

Am I missing something? There seems to be an odd difference in the disposition of the two cases. By any measure, what Studds did was worse. By any measure, his treatment was infinitely more lenient.

Moreover, in the case of Studds, I do not recall demands for investigations of the Democratic leadership about what they knew about Studds and when they knew it. Yet Hastert is pilloried

for having not done something about Foley."

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 8:26 PM | link to this | reply

Nautikos

extremely well-said! 

posted by Nanaroo on October 9, 2006 at 7:02 PM | link to this | reply

I have my principles, as well, Nautikos, and I don't condone down-and-dirty

no-holds-barred political fighting, but, honestly, that seems to be the way it's done.  I'd endorse Mickey Mouse, if they'd get us out of Iraq, and get some of the corruption out of the cronyism.  I'm not a full-blown Democrat, they're not morally perfect. as politics seems to bring out the ugly side of human character, but, by God, Nautikos, something has got to change.

So, if it takes Mark Foley emailing his pages asking whether they're wearing boxers or tighty whities and wanting to know about their masturbatory habits on a government computer,(idiot! shows how arrogant he is, those are tracked!), then so be it.  I'm all in favor of it.  I don't care what it takes, at this point,I am so fed up with this war, the state of the economy, the deficit, and the "morally superior" Republicans pointing fingers, while having their shoddy affairs, as well, and crying and whining like 5 year olds caught with their hands in the cookie jar, "Clinton did it first" that I don't care why we win, I just want an accounting and justice. 

posted by Blanche. on October 9, 2006 at 6:22 PM | link to this | reply

Blanche.

if you win, I hope it'll be for more important reasons than Foley's abysmal character...

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 6:16 PM | link to this | reply

This Dem wants to win back the House, at least, Nautikos.

I think it's quite possible the Republicans threw Foley under the bus themselves, to stir up dust and distract the voters, yet again, from more crucial issues like Condi Rice's trip to iraq and Bob Woodward's book, State of Denial, which was just released. 

I'm not buying that Democrats orchestrated Foley's downfall, but I have no problem with capitalizing on it.  It's time for a change. 

posted by Blanche. on October 9, 2006 at 6:56 AM | link to this | reply

Tanga,

that swine Foley is gone, sunk, politically dead, and good riddance! It just seems to me that people are making a mistake in allowing themselves to be too much influenced by this affair, rather than paying attention to the really important issues.

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 6:54 AM | link to this | reply

Blanche,

and that precisely was my point. Do the Dems really want to win an election because of an unsavory character like Foley, or rather on the basis of having better answers for the problems facing the nation?

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 6:49 AM | link to this | reply

blackcat,

I agree that in the best of all possible worlds a party system might not be necessary, but in our somewhat flawed one I'm afraid it will be with us for quite some time yet...

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 6:44 AM | link to this | reply

Jane,

Foley is just despicable! But you're right: it's mighty strange that this issue should surface now on the eve of the election! I mean if some of the Republicans knew about it for years, I'm sure some Dems did as well...

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 6:39 AM | link to this | reply

TAPS,

you're right of course! It does stink! I am just bemoaning the fact that it draws people's attention away from the really important issues...

posted by Nautikos on October 9, 2006 at 6:34 AM | link to this | reply

I cannot make much of a comment

as I am not as up to date with American politics as perhaps I should be. However, I do feel that a politician is representing their voters and the voters do not want to be seen supporting somebody who does not follow a moral high ground.

posted by Tanga on October 9, 2006 at 12:54 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos, I don't think the Democrats have a lock on integrity or the moral

high ground. In fact, I'm tired of polarized politics in general and just want to get things done, with minimum fuss.  I'd like to look beyond the scandal du jour, of Foley and his pecadilloes, repugnant as they are, and get back to the business of government. 

Not morality, not peeking into eeryone's bedroom, and legislating the fruits thereof, but the larger issues of what do we do about the mess in Iraq, taking care of the soldiers and their families, auditing the billions wasted by Halliburton and other shoddy business practices.

The Republicans are fond of scoffing at how poorly and inefficiently government is run, and compare it to a business, but looking at the way this Administration takes care of business, rewarding cronies, not allowing government agencies like Medicare to negotiate for bulk prices and allowing private interests carte blanche to the public pocketbook, I'd say this business is being run into the ground. 

And some are jumping ship and some are bailing quick. 

posted by Blanche. on October 8, 2006 at 1:07 PM | link to this | reply

very well said. Personally, I despise the party system in general.

People should vote based on the individual, not the party... and without the party system, this guy would have been thrown to the wolves the second it was discovered.  It's all a game and a matter of which team is winning at the time.  It's disgusting (on both sides).

posted by -blackcat on October 8, 2006 at 11:20 AM | link to this | reply

I would agree that what Foley did was so very wrong.

And then to slink off to some alcohol recovery program without having the gumption to face up to his wrong doings -- pretty sad. 

However, I do find it very interesting that Foleygate surfaced when it did.  From what I have heard, the Dems have had these IMs and emails in their possession since at least April.  Why did it come to light only 6 weeks before election?  As wrong as I believe Foley to be, I also smell a dead rat in the actions of some Dems regarding the timing of this hullaballoo.

posted by JanesOpinion on October 8, 2006 at 10:27 AM | link to this | reply

Nautikos, As far as I'm concerned, the whole thing stinks.  Everybody takes advantage of everything, no matter what, to put themselves and their party in the limelight.

posted by TAPS. on October 8, 2006 at 10:01 AM | link to this | reply

Passionflower,

I agree, covering it up was very unwise, if indeed it was known. They should have just forced Foley to leave a long time ago!

posted by Nautikos on October 8, 2006 at 6:58 AM | link to this | reply

I think the whole ordeal is worsened by the fact

That it was covered up and allowed to continue when it could have been dealt with long ago. Why do people do this sort of thing? They have to know they will be caught eventually.

posted by Passionflower on October 7, 2006 at 9:30 PM | link to this | reply

OFFBEATS

thanks for visiting. I had  forgotten all about that cash in the freezer,,,I guess you had noticed, as I do only now, that the mainstream media kind of dropped the whole thing...

posted by Nautikos on October 7, 2006 at 8:11 PM | link to this | reply

Blanche.

while it may be possible to speak of a higher or lower level of integrity in the case of specific individuals, no one has been able to demonstrate to me that the the Democrats as a whole possess more of that quality than the Republicans. In a way, that is what my post is about. Foley is gone; now let's talk about important issues, assuming that this thing called 'integrity' is distributed equally throughout the political landscape. Or do you really want to defend the position that the Dems are in the possession of more virtue than the Republicans?

posted by Nautikos on October 7, 2006 at 7:55 PM | link to this | reply

Very true..people do tend to only see those things which are before them. Larger global issues are something they never think will hit their back yard. It is unfortunate. As for Foley, glad he resigned and the rest will be known after investigation, and not trial by media and screaming loud mouths who seek to position themselves. My friend the good thing about Dems who capitalize on such matters is the sorry fact it comes back to haunt them. I am still waiting for the frozen 90 thousand cold cash lasagna that was found in the Dems refrigerator last summer. I say that would probably break some time before the election too knowing politics... Excellent post...

posted by Offy on October 7, 2006 at 6:37 PM | link to this | reply

I think the larger issue is integrity, in general, Nautikos.

I am not going to gloat, I've got better things to do, and my eyes are on the prize of the upcoming November elections.  I do want Dems to take back some seats, hopefully so that there will be some accountability and auditing done on the business practices of Halliburton in it's reconstruction of Iraq and post-Katrina Gulf area.

Also, I do not give a rat's behind myself who's zooming who (or whom) in DC, honestly, in high-adrenaline, high-powered jobs, it has to be expected, and it's a matter of concern to the man's (and usually is a man's) spouse. Hilary hung in there, no doubt for her career.  And I am no big fan of HIlary btw .  I get to pick and choose my candidates, not just a straight Dem ticket.

Anyway, my point and I did have one, is that Foley is a repugnant on so many different levels: he is a pedophile, the page he accosted is underage. Aside from the homosexuality, which is not the same thing as pedophilia or other forms of perversion. 

I am more concerned with larger issues of morality and integriy and lying and covering up for a cohort is not a good indication of how someone conducts their political life. 

posted by Blanche. on October 7, 2006 at 6:27 PM | link to this | reply