Comments on: Priest Admits Foley Relationship

Tells Newspaper About Questionable Encounters When Ex-Congressman Was A Boy

[hermit22]

"as the twig is bent"

[huskerarmy]

"I wasn't aware it was a mystery that these messages were being shopped around by Democrats."

So let me get this straight. Democrats were shopping around Pelosi's e-mail messages proving that Pelosi knew about Foley's behavior and the liberal media wasn't interested?

[ronniehm]

"Studds certainly isn't irrelevant, but neither is Foley"

There seems to be some confusion. I'm no fan of Foley, and I make no excuses for him. I haven't seen a single Republican who wants anything to do with him either. When it comes to scandals which happen on both sides because there's such a variety of people in both parties, it just seems like Republicans eat their own and Democrats defend theirs. Compare the Republican reaction to Fey and the Democratic reaction to Jefferson if you like. Am I wrong about this? It seems pretty consistent over the years.

[huskerarmy]

Studds is not irrelevant.. just doesn't do anything to excuse or minimize Foley's behavior or the GOP coverup. There are a number of people testifying at this point that Foley's behavior was reported to the leadership. Ronnie is the only one I know of thus far who apparently knows of someone who told Pelosi. I think there are some people who might want to talk to you Ronnie.

[ronniehm]

"Actually I believe that your only purpose of bring up Studds is to minimize Foley's behavior and some how justify the cover up. "

I have never minimized Foley's behavior, but I believe your response to studs was "Has it been 23 years already?" That's just plain hypocrisy.

"Searched the ABC archives for that story on how Pelosi knew about Foley back in April. Can't seem to find it. Got a link maybe?"

Don't have a link to my television, but I'll see what I can find. I wasn't aware it was a mystery that these messages were being shopped around by Democrats.

[cofmanaaron]

Studds certainly isn't irrelevant, but neither is Foley and the fact that the Republican congressinal leaders failed their duty in protecting the pages. They should be held accountable for that as well as any representatives who had the direct responsibility to oversee the program. They didn't perform well enough in their job. Did Hastert and his staff try to keep this from the voters to decide? The Ethics commitee will see. What district was Studds from? Thank god I know it wasn't mine (though I couldn't have voted for him anyhow).

[huskerarmy]

Ronnie,

Searched the ABC archives for that story on how Pelosi knew about Foley back in April. Can't seem to find it. Got a link maybe?

[huskerarmy]

"So let me see if I've got this straight. It's OK to vote for a child molester as long as it's been a few years since he did it."

Actually I believe that your only purpose of bring up Studds is to minimize Foley's behavior and some how justify the cover up. Take that spin stuff to Faux News. It isn't going to work for you outside of neocon land.

[cryonbrian]

Foley is a nasty rascal! PERIOD.........

[ronniehm]

1996 is 10 years ago. That's the year Studds finally retired. So let me see if I've got this straight. It's OK to vote for a child molester as long as it's been a few years since he did it. Is that your position on why Studds is irrelevant even though he was in office just one presidency ago?