Monday Morning Radio

-

Monday morning, 10:05 am, I’ll be chatting for about half an hour on New York public radio’s “Brian Lehrer Show.”
Much to discuss.
Gas prices may be plummeting just in time for the elections. I paid $1.91 a gallon on the way back from Williamsburg and Yorktown today — but the Mark Foley affair is grabbing the headlines and may topple the Speaker.
More later.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

30 comments on “Monday Morning Radio

  1. Royalty Free Beats For One Dollar says:

    Royalty Free Beats For One Dollar
    At
    http://upbeat.tk
    All of our one dollar beats are sample free and royalty free, these beats can be used for Rap, Hip Hop, R&B, advertising, motion production, sports, games, software, ringtones, and more. All we ask is two things, one if you use these beats for commercial purposes that you give “upbeat.tk” written credit for our production and two not to resell or give away beats without vocals if used for musical purposes. Links to download beats will be sent by e mail after purchase, each beat will be sent as a WAVE Audio File and a MP3 File. When purchased you will have non-exclusive rights to the beat or beats you buy for life. If you have any questions feel free to email us at upbeattk@gmail.com thank you and enjoy.

    Reply

  2. pauline says:

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington calls for House to appoint outside counsel to investigate Foley/page scandal
    http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/newsrelease.php?view=162

    Reply

  3. Pissed Off American says:

    Ah, let’s step back, take a breath…..breathe out, and ….there, that’s better. Let’s now think deep thoughts. Think about what happens when Republicans get caught with their pants down and Democrats. That’s right. Democrats: no outrage, let it blow over, feign indignation that our constitutional rights are being trampled (Gary Studds, Barney Frank). But a Republican: you’re gone, don’t bother to pack the bag, we’ll send it to you. Play around (caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl), drink to much: the party gives you the news, not the voters. We’ll find somebody else, thank you, very much.
    The Washington Times has spoken, not the people in Hastert’s district, and it might be his deathknell.
    This is not the party of Clinton (the most vilified politician of the 20th Century). These are professionals.
    Posted by Finest
    Oh ya gotta love it, the ‘ol “Yeah but Clinton” defense! Note that the actual issues, Foley’s predatory behaviour, and the Republican leadership’s manner of abetting Foley’s behaviour, receive nary a mention. Also note the deft manner in which this idiot inserts the notion that “Hey, maybe the people in Foley’s district don’t mind being represented by a sexual predator.”
    Ah yes, “proffessionals”. They ignore Foley’s behaviour for years, now they are lyin’ thier everlovin’ asses off. Yep, sounds like a “proffessional” politician, all right.
    Really, the irony here is that there are people, like the poster above, that will offer a morally bankrupt defense against an accusation of moral bankruptcy.
    Like I said, ya gotta love it.

    Reply

  4. sdemetri says:

    POA, thanks for the Pitt article. At risk of continuing to beat what many consider a dead horse, those who planned to have war games simulating planes flying into buildings, something else the 9/11 commission never addressed, on the same day, coincidently, planes actually flew into buildings, wouldn’t have much cause to rise to the occasion, warnings from Tenet and Black notwithstanding.
    Regarding a cooling off toward, Iran. Really? Maybe a perceived cooling affects markets in the short run, but the momentum of a wayward ship of state is, I would imagine, not so easily deflected.

    Reply

  5. Finest says:

    Ah, let’s step back, take a breath…..breathe out, and ….there, that’s better. Let’s now think deep thoughts. Think about what happens when Republicans get caught with their pants down and Democrats. That’s right. Democrats: no outrage, let it blow over, feign indignation that our constitutional rights are being trampled (Gary Studds, Barney Frank). But a Republican: you’re gone, don’t bother to pack the bag, we’ll send it to you. Play around (caught in bed with a live boy or a dead girl), drink to much: the party gives you the news, not the voters. We’ll find somebody else, thank you, very much.
    The Washington Times has spoken, not the people in Hastert’s district, and it might be his deathknell.
    This is not the party of Clinton (the most vilified politician of the 20th Century). These are professionals.

    Reply

  6. Pissed Off American says:

    Breaking……
    http://tinyurl.com/ptdjp
    Foleygate: ABC hints that more shoes will drop
    by dmsilev
    Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 03:54:41 PM PDT
    ABC News just had an interesting segment on developments in the Foley case. Most of it was just a summary of what happened over the weekend, but there were two bits that hinted at more things to come.
    1. New IMs that strongly strongly suggested that Foley was actually having sex with at least one of the pages
    2. At the end of the segment, Brian Ross said that they were getting emails from a whole bunch of former pages about other people who were also harassing the pages.
    If the media can confirm either of these, the last few days will be seen as the calm before the storm
    Stay tuned.
    -dms

    Reply

  7. Pissed Off American says:

    “BTW, I believe that the Washington Times on Tuesday will call for Speaker Hastert’s resignation.”
    Posted by ET
    Well, thats a start. Now, lets see if any of these pukes in Washington have the guts to call for his indictment. If so, you can bet such a call won’t come from that slimeball Gonzales.

    Reply

  8. Arun says:

    Somone on dailykos pointed this out:
    http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0,8816,333835,00.html
    Time magazine article from 2002. The following probably is the July 10th meeting:
    “In mid-July, Tenet sat down for a special meeting with Rice and aides. “George briefed Condi that there was going to be a major attack,” says an official; another, who was present at the meeting, says Tenet broke out a huge wall chart (“They always have wall charts”) with dozens of threats. Tenet couldn’t rule out a domestic attack but thought it more likely that al-Qaeda would strike overseas. One date already worrying the Secret Service was July 20, when Bush would arrive in Genoa for the G-8 summit; Tenet had intelligence that al-Qaeda was planning to attack Bush there. The Italians, who had heard the same report (the way European intelligence sources tell it, everyone but the President’s dog “knew” an attack was coming) put frogmen in the harbor, closed airspace around the town and ringed it with antiaircraft guns.
    But nothing happened. After Genoa, says a senior intelligence official, there was a collective sigh of relief: “A lot of folks started letting their guard down.” After the final deputies’ meeting on Clarke’s draft of a presidential directive, on July 16, it wasn’t easy to find a date for the Principals’ Committee to look at the plan-the last stage before the paper went to Bush. “There was one meeting scheduled for August,” says a senior official, “but too many principals were out of town.” Eventually a date was picked: the principals would look at the draft on Sept. 4. That was about nine months after Clarke first put his plan on paper.”

    Reply

  9. ET says:

    BTW, I believe that the Washington Times on Tuesday will call for Speaker Hastert’s resignation.

    Reply

  10. ET says:

    POA, Got it. Agreed. I recapped that the clear label is felony, not just dysfunction, not to subtract from your point, but to ground it. People can cover a dysfunction without having complicity in a crime. A felony is another matter. K?

    Reply

  11. Roger says:

    “Criminal responsibility is not limited only to those who perform the criminal acts themselves. As a general principle, anyone who “aids and abets” the perpetrator by encouraging or in any way knowingly helping him (for instance, by providing information, implements, or practical help) is an accomplice and is considered equally guilty.”
    http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53411/crime-and-punishment#500363.hook
    Is sending sexually explicit E-Mails to minors a crime? If not, then why did Foley resign? If so, it would seem that anyone who knew Foley had sent those messages and failed to report that information to proper authorities would be aiding and abetting his actions and would be equally guilty.

    Reply

  12. Pissed Off American says:

    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100206X.shtml
    Condi Rice, 9/11 and Another Nest of Lies
    By William Rivers Pitt
    Monday 02 October 2006
    Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may have committed perjury in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004. At a minimum, her testimony was a convenient mishmash of half-truths and omissions which served to paint the White House as innocent bystanders as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded. Certainly, her testimony omitted the fact that the two most senior intelligence officials in the nation delivered a stern warning regarding an impending terror attack two full months before 9/11.
    Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled “Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice.” The story described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice’s attention to the looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, “State of Denial.”
    “Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts,” read the Post story, “and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined ‘Bin Laden Threats Are Real.’ Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself … Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment – covert, military, whatever – to thwart bin Laden.”
    The meeting, according to Tenet and Black, went nowhere. “Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn’t want to swat at flies,” the Post story reported. “Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.”
    “Tenet left the meeting feeling frustrated,” continued the Post story. “Though Rice had given them a fair hearing, no immediate action meant great risk. Black felt the decision to just keep planning was a sustained policy failure. Rice and the Bush team had been in hibernation too long. Afterward, Tenet looked back on the meeting with Rice as a tremendous lost opportunity to prevent or disrupt the Sept. 11 attacks. Black later said, ‘The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.'”
    The Post story concluded with a remarkable Editor’s Note: “How much effort the Bush administration made in going after Osama bin Laden before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, became an issue last week after former president Bill Clinton accused President Bush’s ‘neocons’ and other Republicans of ignoring bin Laden until the attacks. Rice responded in an interview that ‘what we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years.'”
    This comment suggests the entire Post story was inspired by former President Clinton’s remarkable denunciation of the Bush administration’s efforts to thwart bin Laden in a recent Fox News interview. The seriousness of this meeting, however, goes far beyond political sniping and gamesmanship.
    Peter Rundlet served as counsel to the 9/11 Commission, and has accused the White House of hiding the meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice from the commission. Rundlet practiced at the influential law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, and was formerly associate counsel to the president and a White House Fellow, serving in the Office of Chief of Staff to the President, before joining the commission.
    Writing for the online news magazine Think Progress, Rundlet stated, “Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation, questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the commissioners and the staff investigating the administration’s actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting. As Commissioner Jamie Gorelick pointed out, ‘We didn’t know about the meeting itself. I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.'”
    This is a remarkable revelation in and of itself. The head of CIA and the head of CIA’s counterterrorism branch delivered a warning in the strongest possible terms to Ms. Rice two months before the attack, yet this meeting was not revealed to the 9/11 Commission. It may well have remained a historical non-event had Woodward not written about it.
    Which brings us to Ms. Rice’s sworn testimony in May 2004 before the commission.
    At one point in this hearing, Commission Vice-Chair Lee Hamilton directly asked Rice about the so-called intelligence failures leading up to 9/11: “At the end of the day, of course, we were unable to protect our people. And you suggest in your statement – and I want you to elaborate on this, if you want to – that in hindsight it would have been – better information about the threats would have been the single – the single most important thing for us to have done, from your point of view, prior to 9/11, would have been better intelligence, better information about the threats. Is that right? Are there other things that you think stand out?”
    Rice responded, “Well, Mr. Chairman, I took an oath of office on the day that I took this job to protect and defend. And like most government officials, I take it very seriously. And so, as you might imagine, I’ve asked myself a thousand times what more we could have done. I know that, had we thought that there was an attack coming in Washington or New York, we would have moved heaven and earth to try and stop it. And I know that there was no single thing that might have prevented that attack.”
    Not only did Rice fail to mention the dramatic warnings given to her by Tenet and Black, she goes on to flatly state that neither she nor the administration had a clue that an attack was coming. Further, she claims that “no single thing could have prevented that attack.”
    “The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks,” read the Post report on Sunday, “but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”
    Combined with the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing delivered to Bush, which explicitly stated that bin Laden intended to attack the United States, the revelation of this meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice indicates that the Bush White House should have and could have made a far greater effort at thwarting the 9/11 attacks. Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission on the matter may rise to the level of perjury. At a minimum, it exposes yet another nest of lies delivered by a member of this administration.
    “A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me,” wrote Peter Rundlet in his Think Progress article, “when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward’s new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001. If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know.”
    Indeed.
    ——————————————————————————–
    William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn’t Want You to Know and The Greatest Sedition Is Silence. His newest book, House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America’s Ravaged Reputation, will be available this winter from PoliPointPress.

    Reply

  13. Pissed Off American says:

    ET, I have no doubt a crime has been committed. And it is not my contention that Foley’s actions should not be pursued as a crime. But I just feel that the absence of action on the part of the Republican leadership should be considered no less of a crime. Foley acted out of a disfunctional ability to control his sexual urges, and I have no doubt that he would have had sex with these minors if he coulda swung it. Who knows, maybe he did. As such, you are right, he is a criminal. But what of the leadership that knew of Foley’s sexual bent, yet did NOTHING about it? Aren’t they the bigger criminals in this debacle? They acted not out of a dysfunctional emotional state, but abbetted Foley’s crimes out of partisan interest, and turned their heads at the behest of political expediency. They were willing to sacrifice the safety of the pages in their care, willfully and calculatingly, in order to avoid scandal. I would like to see Foley lose any opportunity to work around children again, and recieve counseling. But in turn, I would like to see Hastert and the rest of the scum that were aware of Foley’s actions THROWN OUT of Congress, charged with child endangerment, obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting. Anything less is a travesty of justice. But hey, that seems to be the rule of thumb under the criminal auspices of this administration. Besides, our Attorney General is simply an advocate for the Republicans and the Bush Administration, so it is highly doubtful that anyone will face criminal charges, except the sacrificial lamb Foley.

    Reply

  14. ET says:

    Recap:
    Pages are minors.
    According to the law which Foley wrote, that makes all the difference in the world.
    That difference is termed a felony.

    Reply

  15. Pissed Off American says:

    Another comment about this Foley thing. Again, I must underscore that this is really a matter of morals and integrity within our congressional body more than it is an issue about pedophilia or homosexuality. At this point, all we really know is that Foley seems to have been attracted to teenage boys and was sending inappropriate and suggestive emails to these boys. And apprently the Republicamn leadership chose to do nothing about it, although they may have been aware of Foley’s improprieties for close to five years.
    As far as the accusations of “pedophilia” go, I am not so comfortable with that. I am no psychologist, but I am not real sure that an attraction to 16 year olds qualifies as pedophilia. I would assume true pedophilia would be exhibited by someone that is attracted to boys or girls that are not physically sexually mature. What heterosexual male posting here can honestly claim he hasn’t looked twice at a passing teenage girl? Considering Foley’s homosexuality, I do not find it too suprising that he would be attracted to teenage males. The suprising and despicable aspect of this whole thing is the manner in which he dealt with his attractions. Most emotionally mature people, if they experience sexual attraction towards a teenager, are aware that it is WRONG to act upon that attraction, and are able to refocus their libido towards acceptable and legal sexual pursuits.
    So the issue, in my opinion, is not about Foley’s sexual preferences, NOR can it accurately be represented as an issue about pedophilia. This is an issue about responsiblity, and integrity. Foley is a pitiable human being, who has displayed a lack of emotional maturity and integrity. As such, he has rightfully resigned, and one hopes he will seek some help. I suspect his self admittance to an alchohol treatment center is merely a tactic to remove him from the reach of the media. There are plenty of recovering alchoholics one can talk to and find out that attempting to seduce teenage boys IS NOT one of the symptoms of alchoholism.
    So the REAL issue here is the irresponsibility of the Republican leadership. Their sins in this matter FAR OUTWIEGH the transgressions of this pathetic Foley creature. These are the people determining the course of our nation. We should hold them to a high standard, and over the course of the last five years they have held themselves to a low standard. They are despicably devoid of any sense of right or wrong, and have proven themselves to be morally bankrupt.
    Unfortunately, this whole thing will soon blow over, Foley will be the sole party punished, and these slimey sons of bitches will slither on to abetting the next right wing travesty that Bush will undoubtedly inflict upon our nation.
    And meanwhile, the media is paying very little attention to Woodward’s revelations about Rice’s pre 9/11 meeting with Tenet, and the implications of such a meeting. The Rice/Tenet story is blockbuster, and I have no doubt the Republican leadership sees the Foley drama as being far less damaging to the Bush Administration. They will simply throw Foley to the wolves with much fanfare and media exposure as a tactic to keep the Rice/Tenet meeting out of the spotlight. And the ignorant drooling masses will eat it up like chocolate pudding, savoring the tittilation of watching another made for TV sex scandal unfold in Washington DC.
    Yep. Rome IS burning.

    Reply

  16. cfsteak says:

    As we understand it, back in late July Goldman Sachs decided it was going to reduce the weighting of gasoline in its widely followed commodity index (GSCI). Participants wanting to dissect the entrails of that decision may refer to The Financial Times story dated August 29, 2006 titled “Market Insight: Index shifts follows oil decline.” Suffice it to say, Goldman took the gasoline weighting in its commodity index from 7.3% to 2.5%, for pretty mysterious reasons, in a gasoline-centric economy (IMO). Goldman even went so far as to scale-in those reductions at intervals between August and November. Accordingly, the billions of institutional dollars that “mimic” (read: invest) the GSCI have had to periodically SELL those gasoline futures contracts to stay in-sync with the index’s new weightings. Unsurprisingly, unleaded gasoline prices peaked on August 3rd at $2.35/gallon, basis the NYMEX November future’s contract, and crashed into last week’s lows of $1.46/gallon for an eight-week price decline of 38%, causing one old Wall Street wag to cream,
    “SPURIOUS!”
    http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=11327

    Reply

  17. Jon Stopa says:

    Steve,
    Come on, let’s be cynical. A big chunk of the price of oil this summer had to do with the fear factor caused by the Adminstration’s wild policy toward Iran. Given by the cooling of the Adminstration’s threats toward Iran recently the fear component of the price of oil must have deminished. The result, lower gas prices.
    Jon

    Reply

  18. jbCharleston says:

    Steve,
    On the oil/gasoline issue, a conspiracy I’m sure couldn’t be proven, but here’s an old anecdote from the 1973 gas shortage.
    My (late) father was a senior tax accountant for Exxon, hence he got to see all of the records of wholesale deliveries in the US. He told me that he had noticed that there were suddenly shipments to previously closed retail gas station (mostly in the South). But no records of sales from those stations. This gave a chance for Exxon to claim more demand, hence at least aggravating the shortage and “normal” supply/demand process.
    I suppose it’s possible that the major suppliers would simultaneously (and independently of course) think to ask the Saudis and others to pump lots more to force prices down thereby helping to save the set of b’s that support them – to our detriment again.

    Reply

  19. Linda says:

    Two wrongs don’t make a right, but no one in power should be seducing young pages or interns. Power itself is very seductive to many people, especially the young who lack power. However, it is worth noting that Lewinsky was legally of age and doing her share of seduction. Congressional pages are 16 years old and high school students just in DC for a semester or so. Whether the predator is heterosexual or homosexual makes no difference at all, but the age does matter in terms of possible criminal violations.

    Reply

  20. Matthew says:

    Someone from the oil industry can explain it better than I, but since no one has stepped up, her goes: There are two very good reasons that we have higher gas prices in the summer: (1) increased demand (“summer driving season”); and (2) EPA formulation requirements for summer gas, particularly in some markets, like Houston. Last year, we did not see the normal fall decline because of the damage caused to refinery production by Katrina and Rita.
    I’m sure Steve has a contact in the EPA who could flesh out this explanation.

    Reply

  21. CLD says:

    The focus on the Foley incident needs to be kept on the sexual predator angle. Whether he’s gay or not shouldn’t be at issue. We need to keep “homosexual” and “pedophile” separate or else the sheeple will continue to believe the lies that the evangelical right have been spewing… that gay = pedophile. Which is a complete and total BS lie.

    Reply

  22. Bill H. says:

    There’s a metric for how much world oil prices get reflected at US pumps–don’t quote me, but something like every dollar/barrel rise or fall translates to about a nickel per gallon of gas.
    So if world prices have fallen $10 per barrel since the summer peak, then at least a 50 cent per gallon decline, maybe more, would be expected. That may not cover the entire recent declines, though.
    Plus, you know the old saying, “If you’re not cynical, you’re not paying attention.”

    Reply

  23. Caitlyn says:

    Steve, I can think of several reasons for the drop in gas prices, some political and some benign. Do you have any sense whether the reason is due to availability (for example, are the Saudis increasing their sales to reduce prices for crude), a decline in consumption (due to higher prices) or some factor related to domestic production or refining?
    If it weren’t for Foley and for Woodward’s book, the sudden decline in gas prices would stand out as a good example of an October surprise, so I am suspicious of the timing.

    Reply

  24. Carroll says:

    oh gawd!…the Foley thing is worst then I knew. I just read up on it a bit and it appears that a lot of people in the house knew about Foley chasing teenagers and did nothing…and that something of the same type happened three years ago with another page.
    Anyone who knew anything about Foley’s targeting these boys or even had reason to suspect something and did nothing should be fired or made to resign. What kind of person sees this going on and does nothing?
    Jesus!..how much more filth can possibily come out of congress.

    Reply

  25. Carroll says:

    Foley being gay is o.k.. But the age of the boys Foley was after?…unexcusable, criminal. If he was not gay he might have been stalking teenage girls instead of boys…he’s just a bad man.
    And Hastert?.. well he was born a pig.

    Reply

  26. Pissed Off American says:

    Well, Steve, thats unfortunate truth. People have accused me of being homophobic because of my often citation of the Gannon/Guckert affair. That could not be further from the truth. I cite the Gannon/Guckert affair because it epitomizes the hypocracy of this administration. It has nothing to do with the fact it was a GAY pornographer and whore masquerading as a journalist, and doing sleep-overs in the West Wing. It has to do with the stated positions of this Administration towards gays, and their pandering to the VERY homophobic religious right. Such hypocracy only seerves to underscore the FACT that very few White House positions are founded on conviction or truth of intent, but instead amount to little more than political posturing and grandstanding.
    The same applies to this Foley affair. His predatory sexual proclivities are of course despicable, but the LARGER issue is the complete lack of integrity illustrated by the behaviour of Republican leadership that has, apparently, been aware of Foley’s predatory nature for some time now. Good God, these slimey bastards are determining America’s direction, and representing us to the world community. If they are willing to tolerate and conceal a sexual deviant in their midst that is preying on children, what else are they tolerating and concealing at the behest of political expediency? How can we trust these bastards to use strong moral judgements in the dispensation of their duties??? Tghe somple answer is, we can’t. Every time I think these scum have lowered the bar, the place it yet further down the scale of human decency. The truth ius, anyone with ANY integrity, thaty has closely followed events of the last five years, MUST be ASHAMED of the leadership of our nation. Period. If you are an American, and you are not ashamed of the scum in Washington, than you haven’t a clue what this nation once stood for.

    Reply

  27. Steve Clemons says:

    The fact that Foley was gay was known. The fact that he was a predator of this sort was not known to me. He is one of several other significant gay, closeted Republicans in the Congress — and the outing process was under way for him. What is sad is that the American public sees a gay politician who is also a sexual predator, and they will wrongly conflate these, or many will.
    best, Steve Clemons

    Reply

  28. Reader says:

    The Foley/Hastert implosion was not a surprise but, rather, a well kept secret – both by the perpetrators of concealment who thought no one would notice and by those who knew what had happened and understood there was no political value in exposing this example of Republican family values hypocrisy before the campaign season had begun. Thank you John Aravosis. Take the gloves off.

    Reply

  29. Matthew says:

    Steve: Was the Foley implosion a surprise or a poorly kept secret in D.C.?

    Reply

  30. ET says:

    A panoply of news fireworks has exploded, within weeks of the mid-term election, now skywriting in big letters to all caring Americans:
    “Foley = Pedophile = GOP”
    “My tax dollars = War in Iraq = Increase in Terrorism”
    “Bribe money = crime = White House”
    “Pro-Torture = Constitution out the Window = Traitors”
    To sum up the Foley scandal in the context of the other key news this week:
    1. GOP family-values poster boy Foley, amidst undeniable proof of his own immorality, resigned.
    2. The tentacles of the Abramoff gang-of-thieves was more widespread – and higher-reaching – than previously reported.
    3. Judge Anna Diggs Taylor (re ACLU v. NSA ) who had recently ruled that the President’s warrant less eavesdropping violated both criminal law and the U.S. Constitution, refused the administration’s request for a stay and instead gave them only seven days to comply with her Order.
    4. ABC-TV, after being pummeled for “Path to 9-11”, led with anti-administration, anti-GOP stories in prime time last night.
    5. Bob Woodward hawking his latest book, shedding a less-than-favorable light on the White House and its machinations in an attempt to regain his all-but-lost credibility with the public as a journalist of integrity.
    6. Now-public reports disclose: the escalation of violent terrorism is a direct result of the occupation of Iraq; the fruitlessness of the ‘Stay the Course” strategy; how much money this fiasco is costing the American taxpayer.
    7. Elected representatives D and R have been flooded with phone calls, faxes, letters and e-mails in the last 24 hours about their pro-torture vote. The blowback is a lifelong label of being too spineless to stand up for the Constitution against the Chimperor in Chief.
    8. Those running or proposing to run for office will wear the scarlet letters “Pro-Torture” for the rest of their careers.
    9. People will not forget the names of those who were willing to sell out everything this country is about.
    10. And then there’s the serially unconfirmed US Ambassador to the UN, Bolton the Terrible.
    The truth is finally getting out there. In recent days, it’s been more “out there” than the Chimpinator & Company will admit. With kudos to Nance Greggs:
    It aint over till the Fat Lady sings.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *