Even if his confession was contrived I hope the man DOES get the help he clearly needs. (Hat tip to Chris Muir)
Again -- and this should go without saying -- Foley was right to resign. As far as I can see, the main difference between Republicans (like Foley) and Demunists (like Gerry Studds) is that Republicans do resign when they do something wrong in cyberspace. When they do something wrong in REAL LIFE, Demunists stay, get overwhelmingly re-elected and then blame the fact that their transgressions even came to light on the "racists" and "sexists" and "homophobes" who are out to get them.
However, it has become apparent that:
1. The young man with whom Mr. Foley was engaged in lurid instant messages was not a minor, although there is some dispute about his age.
2. The young man with whom Mr. Foley was engaged in lurid instant messages was setting him up and toying with him; Foley got “punk’d”. The brat's goading/baiting was persistent, and it's not very realistic to portray the page as a victim if he initiated the dirty IM-ing. (hat tip to American Thinker)
3. No, that still does not excuse what Foley did. He still tried to have cybersex with an 18 year old, which, while perhaps not a crime, is still a gross breach, whether the guy on the other end of the 'tubes was jerking him around or not. (hat tip to Ace of Spades)
4. Hastert SHOULD NOT resign. He didn't know about it, as the emails (as opposed to the instant messages) were innocuous. If Foley wasn't a true predator, but rather only eventually went sexual when this kid baited him into it, it hardly makes it obvious that Foley should have been booted out earlier. Obviously, a "dirty trick" hardly mitigates the disgracefulness of Foley's conduct, nor does it mean that the GOP House leadership shouldn't pay closer attention to anything like this in the future. If Hastert was honestly not paying enough attention, he should fess up, appoint a commission to better prevent such events in the future, and move on.
5. How/why was the IM log saved in the first place? (Do you routinely save *your* IM logs?) It only seems likely in this case if it was a prank (or if it was something more sinister, along the lines of entrapment/extortion.)
6. Judging by the origination of this story, certain Demunist operatives knew about this, for months beforehand, before Mr. Hastert knew, but sat on it merely to inflict political damage on all Republicans by association. "October Surprise" anyone?
And THERE’S the rub.
If high-ranking Demunists knew more about this than Republicans did, how can they claim that Republicans failed to act on information only THEY had?
No actual molestation occurred; what happened only happened in Mr. Foley’s sick and demented mind. However, what if it had? And rather than promptly reporting the matter, isn’t it just *peachy* that the Demunists chose to SIT on it for political gain, rather than stop any potential abuse from happening RIGHT AWAY?
For the ten thousandth time, of course, this doesn't mitigate what Foley did, or make him anything but a dirty old chickenhawk (that is the true meaning of the word, an older gay pedophile) who trolls for cybersex with young men.
However, for all their posturting, prominent Demunists knew about this long before prominent Republicans did, and chose to do nothing--until, of course, it would maximize “guilt by association” damage politically. Mark Foley was left free to potentially prey on young men for months, so long as it contributed to the “greater moral good” of a Demunist congressional victory.
If that sanctimonious bitch Nancy Pelosi opens her mouth on this again, I will need a barf bag, because she was around in Congress when Gerry Studds was up to no good.
Updates: The People's Cube hilariously sums this scandal up.
Annika's Journal notices the double standard and Catch-22 the Demunists try to set up.