'One difference between what happened with Mr. Foley and Mr. Studds: the Foley revelations happened last week. The Studds issue was twenty-three years ago. '

A couple of other differences, Studds was actually boinking underage interns and he never resigned and served until 1996. Since the Dems knew about Foley for over a year and Studds continues to serve for 13 years I have to disregard their faux concern for the children.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert and other GOP leaders are dismissing suggestions that they should have ...

It's always about the coverup, or the incomplete investigations, isn't it....

The Washington Times' Tony Blankley has joined a small chorus of voices calling for the resignation of Denny Hastert as Speaker of the House: The facts of the disgrace of Mark Foley, who was a Republican member of the House......

I think the lynching of Hastert et al is a bit too soon, I would like to see the facts without the hyperbole.

If it is plausible that a federal crime was committed, especially one that might have required a sitting US Congressman to be registered as a sex offender, it could very well have been illegal for either Hastert or the parents to have prevented an investigation and/or failed to report it to law enforcement.

Now I haven't read any actual news updates on this since this morning, but this morning I read that the FBI was given these emails in July, and the FBI determined that there wasn't enough evidence to warrant further investigation.

I think mostly where the ball seems to be dropped and what I don't understand is why nobody talked to the Pages to see if anyone else was receiving emails, and honestly I think the chairman of the Page board is more culpable based on the evidence than Hastert.

Due-process lynching?

But if anyone suspends Mr. Foley from a noose, it will be Mr. Foley (which I hope, of course, he doesn't do, even for autoerotic-asphyxial purposes).

If you are worried about keeping ones eye on the ball, how do you feel about the fact that Mr. Bush has us bogged down in Iraq, where there were no WMD, while he has basically done nothing about N Korea, which does have them, and Iran, which appears to be working hard at getting them...

Posted by: Bandit at October 3, 2006 13:10 Permalink

Not exusing perhaps, but diverting. One difference between what happened with Mr. Foley and Mr. Studds: the Foley revelations happened last week. The Studds issue was twenty-three years ago.

The Nuclear weapon threat has somehow managed to barely get a mention since the Foley FireStorm is much more important in the scheme of things. Have we managed to enter the twilight zone or what? In what Bizarro world is this acceptable? Glad I asked! The answer? POLITICS. Seems that politics and elections are more important than the Nuclear threat that Iran and North Korea pose to this world. How silly of me to think it should be any different. Shame on me.

Lets keep our eye on the ball folks, there IS an investigation going on from the FBI, how about we wait until it is done before we start lynching people? This way we can get back to the issues facing us globally.

There is an old expression " Consider the source", that should be applied liberally to this situation with Frist. The source in question is Associated Press, and the writer himself, Jim Krane.
...

Worth clicking the link for the picture of 16-year-old Scarlett Johansson which he appends. I must say, his case is a persuasive one.