L.A. Times: Foley had sex with ex-page

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-page8oct08,0,3896853.story?coll=la-home-headlines

This page was 21 at the time, so definitely legal.

But, re: Drudge's "theory," it seems those ex-pages will go pretty far for a prank. I wonder if Johnny Knoxville is hiring.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

the wingers dont cotton to no homosexuality though.

how many think this was the only one? and all of them will be of legal age?

i dont think so.

Hannity now says she was 19, and the MSM kept calling her 21 at the time, because it sounded more damning than the actual 22 that she was when the Most Terrible Thing a President Ever Did occurred -- before we had a White House that limited its misbehavior to killing 100,000 innocent people and setting the Middle East ablaze. And letting an American city drown. And...

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

And given the treatment and moralplay Clinton got, Foley easily deserves the same.

Especially by his own party.

Indeed, what if Foley was a Dem?

That's how asking these sorts of questions strikes me unless they are raised simply to point out hypocrisy.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
That is, if Clinton should not have been reviled for consensual sex (assuming it was consensual and not harassment) then Foley shouldn't be either.
The question of the underage pages who were pages at the time of the actions is a different question.

The more off-balance of our wingnut colleagues across the aisle have been saying the whole thing was nothing but a set up, a prank. Some have even said that Foley was not even gay.

This sort of puts a torch to that whole line of thinking, doesn't it? -- though they'll probably fall back on "he's lying!" or "depends on what the definition of 'sex' is"...:eyes:

unethical?

gone nuts.

thing could go away in a jiffy. Naturally the mantra would become, "It's all Clinton's fault".

Why is that not the battle cry here as it was with Bill and Monica? Guess it's ok if you're a repuke, even if it IS with a member of the same sex.

At least according to what I find when I google bios on him.
Should stick to the facts.

When he apologized for letting his "family" down, I mistakenly assumed he was speaking of his marital family.

The facts can easily get garbled in these kind of things.
No surprise if you mistook what was meant.

that was the point of the dirty emails and IMs to begin with.

underage boy pages, by sending them sexy suggestions and luring them into computer sex to see who could be seduced. The crime was, a) that they were underage, at an age of vulnerability to such suggestions, and b) that he was using his high office and position of authority and government facilities, and a government program (the page program), to do this. And it is the long-standing Republican coverup of these attempts to seduce boys, even as they shoved a 'family values" agenda down our throats, that is so incredibly hypocritical and reprehensible. What this means, for one thing, is that the Bushites in Congress had one vote they could be sure of, on any matter. Foley's. And given the Bush Junta's pervasive and illegal domestic spying activities, it points to sleazy and corrupt means of controlling people. I'm surpised this hasn't been a more prominent part of the discussion of the Republican coverup of what, to them (if one believes their blather), should have been anathema--molesting children. WHY did they tolerate it, and for so long? Weakness, sin, crime = a means of control.

I'm reminded of one of the odd facts of the Gary Condit/Chandra Levy story--that Condit met with Dick Cheney on the very day that Chandra Levy disappeared (5/1/01), during the very hours of her disappearance, 12-3 (when Condit had no other alibi), and that two days AFTER her disappearance (on 5/3/01) Condit voted FOR the Bush Junta's first tax cut for the rich, and was one of only ten Democrats who did so, in a very close vote, on a very controversial measure. I have always wondered what took place at that Cheney/Condit meeting*. Did Cheney have a dossier on Condit? (It turned out that Condit had several mistresses, not just Levy; she was his youngest mistress and was pressuring him to leave his wife and get married; she also apparently wanted him to get her a job at the FBI.) Frankly, I think we are going to find out some day that the Bush Junta's spying program--and maybe their torture program as well--had nothing to do with "terrorists" and everything to do with controlling people and covering up their own crimes--of personal perversion, massive theft, arms dealing, manufacturing war, funding Al Qaeda, treason, stealing elections and god knows what else.

The BIG LIE of the Bush Republican Party is that they care about morals. All they care about is PROFIT, and the power to shovel more profits into their own pockets, including putting future generations in hock for $10 TRILLION (--the part we know about)--all for themselves and their super-rich friends.

Figure this: Cheney had the goods on Condit. Condit, a Democrat, votes for the first, and highly controversial (in that pre-Diebold Congress), tax cut for the rich. That's the filthy dynamic of this regime. (And we may never know how this poor girl got snuffed, and to what extent she was being used, and by whom.)

----------------------------

*(Another peculiar fact about the Condit/Levy affair was that, three months after her disappearance, statements by Cheney's aides about the Cheney/Condit meeting during Levy's disappearance hours (that it was only 20 mins, that aides were present and that it was a routine political meeting) showed up in Newsweek. Condit had a 3-hour hole in his schedule at the time of her disappearance, with only the Cheney meeting occuring in that period. The length of the meeting was therefore an important item. The aides quoted in Newsweek further stated that no one--not the FBI, not the DC police--no one had asked Cheney or anyone in his office about that meeting, not even to verify that it had occured, during the three months of investigation (May-August '01)--an extraordinary revelation that just slid past Newsweek (and the entire, Bush-loving, corporate DC news corps) causing not a ripple. Cheney had three months to think about his version of the meeting, never got asked about it, and dropped his version of the meeting into the newsstream only after the FBI had publicly changed the probable time of Levy's disappearnce from mid-morning to early afternoon. (The Cheney/Condit meeting reportedly began about noon.) The very least we can conclude from this and other facts of the Condit/Levy investigation is the investigation was being manipulated behind the scenes to protect the White House's favorite "blue dog" Democrat Condit (at first), but above all to protect Cheney, and, finally, to cut Condit loose when Cheney chose to. Something else going on that summer was an "investigation" (purge?) of the Clinton FBI by the House Intelligence Committee, of which Condit was a member and privy to all sorts of government secrets. And this was all occurring in the months immediately leading up to 9/11. FBI agent John O'Neil, who had been following the Al Qaeda money trail, was being forced out of the FBI. And FBI agent Colleen Rowley couldn't get her routine request for a FISA warrant, to get into Zacharias Moussoui's computer, okayed her bosses in DC. (Was this House "investigation" of the FBI being used in some way to facilitate LIHOP?) I didn't know about O'Neil or Rowley at the time, but I remember writing off the DC press corps that August, as thoroughly corrupt, on the basis of their handling of the Cheney/Condit meeting and other aspects of the Levy disappearance. They seemed to be putty in Cheney's hands. I knew that this did not bode well for our country, but I had no idea what an ill omen it was.)