So, using this standard, President Clinton never apologized or took responsibility for his intern problem?

ahh, all you have left is Clinton. 2006 and all you can do is talk about Clinton. I think its time to reopen the Vince Foster case.

I'm just trying to be consistent, Jimmy.

(CNN) -- The family of a Louisiana teenager who reported "sick" e-mails from former Rep. Mark Foley called their son a hero Thursday and said they want reporters to go away.

Foley resigned last week after Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a left-leaning watchdog group, posted some of the e-mails he exchanged with the former male page in 2005, who was then 16 and had worked for Rep. Rodney Alexander, a Louisiana Republican.

The e-mails to the Louisiana teen included a request for the teen's picture. In another exchange, Foley purportedly asked the teen what he wanted for his birthday and "what stuff do you like to do?"

And in another, the congressman is quoted as making comments about another former page, saying he "acts much older than his age" and "he's in really great shape."

The scandal has rocked the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives and led to accusations of a cover-up.

The full text of the family's statement:

We would like to express our support for our congressman, Rodney Alexander, whose office sponsored our son's position as a House page. As far as we know, Congressman Alexander's conduct in this matter has been beyond reproach. He has tried his best to do what we have asked him to do from the very beginning: Namely, to protect the privacy of our son and family from the intense media scrutiny we are now having to endure.

In the fall of 2005, as soon as Congressman Alexander became aware of the e-mails received by our son, he called us. He explained that his office had been made aware of these e-mails by our son and that while he thought the e-mails were overly friendly, he did not think, nor did we think, that they were offensive enough to warrant an investigation.

Rather, we asked him to see that Congressman Foley stop e-mailing or contacting our son and to otherwise drop the matter in order to avoid a media frenzy. He did so. If we had any other knowledge or evidence of potential impropriety, we would have asked for the matter to be treated differently. For instance, we were not aware of the instant messages that have come to light in the past few days.

These instant messages, which have only recently surfaced as a result of the news of the ambiguous e-mails received by our son, are separate matters.

As a young man with integrity who had the courage to question the intention of the e-mails, we respect and honor our son as a hero. Despite his courageous actions, he is becoming a victim due to the harassment by some of the media. Please honor our request that we be left alone. There is nothing more that we can contribute to this ongoing matter. He is not the story, and we feel this intense media scrutiny could endanger our son and family.

We have no intention of discussing this further. Thank you.

So, using this standard, President Clinton never apologized or took responsibility for his intern problem?

Well, sure, if you believe that Clinton was never willing to examine, in a serious-minded way, what he did wrong and why, you would think that. Personally, I disagree with that assessment, and even moreso think its not particularly useful when presented in a conclusionary way to discussing the present situation.

But, anyhow, we know with you, T1, that its all about distraction and not serious discussion, anyhow.

Chris:

I read his 1000 page book, did you? It was obvious Clinton had not, at least up to that point, seriously examined what he did wrong and why -- if you'd rather not discuss that, fine by me -- Hastert has ALREADY taken more responsibility than Clinton ever did.

Hastert has ALREADY taken more responsibility than Clinton ever did.

cite, please. The comments I saw quoted did not take any responsibility.

By the way, saying "I did nothing wrong, but take full responsibility and I'm not resigning" is definately *not* taking responsibility.

Considering Hastert has apologized and called for a full investigation as to something he didn't even do, that's a hell of a lot more than Clinton did. I say we get everyone under oath. Why is it that Pelosi and Emannuel have refused to take a polygraph test over the Foley mess.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061005

Pelosi has also refused to make a sworn affidavit
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news3.html

Why is Pelosi objecting to former FBI chief Louis Freeh conducting a full investigation?

Considering Hastert has apologized and called for a full investigation as to something he didn't even do,

Yes, see, what you seem to fail to realize is that the problem here is precisely what Hastert "didn't even do": specifically, anything when he found out about Foley, until their became a public scandal.

Had he acted responsibly, there would be no public scandal affecting the Republican leadership and Party, it would all be contained to Foley. Its too late for "taking responsibility" to erase that failure. The time to take responsibility is when you learn of information which should warn you of problems needing investigation and action, not after they blow up in your face.

But then, after "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US" and no action until after 9/11, after the warnings on Katrina and no action until well into the disaster, after the whole series of Republican leaders getting warnings and failing to act until after things have blown up, despite their penchant for chasing fantasies like the mythical Iraqi WMDs, how can anyone really be surprised?

Chasing fantasies while ignoring real threats defines the modern Republican Party.

How many more Congressmen are engaging in this type of behavior?

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/10/three_more_form.html

Three more former congressional pages have come forward to reveal what they call "sexual approaches" over the Internet from former Congressman Mark Foley.

The pages served in the classes of 1998, 2000 and 2002. They independently approached ABC News after the Foley resignation through the Brian Ross & the Investigative Team's tip line on ABCNews.com. None wanted their names used because of the sensitive nature of the communications.

"I was seventeen years old and just returned to [my home state] when Foley began to e-mail me, asking if I had ever seen my page roommates naked and how big their penises were," said the page in the 2002 class.

The former page also said Foley told him that if he happened to be in Washington, D.C., he could stay at Foley's home if he "would engage in oral sex" with Foley.

Why is Pelosi objecting to former FBI chief Louis Freeh conducting a full investigation?

Because former FBI chief Louis Freeh is widely regarded as a partisan hack friendly to the Right?

Chris:

I posted, in their entirety, the emails and asked you what specifically you thought should have "warned" Republicans of problems needing investigation and action -- you did not reply to that question -- I also said I am fine running every homosexual out of Washington, D.C. Your choice.

Why then has Pelosi refused to make a sworn affidavit about what she knows of the Foley e-mails and IM?

I don't know why I'm responding to Thomas1, but if you really want to compare the apologies (is Clinton really topical???), here they are:

Clinton's apology, in part:

Nothing I can say now can add to that. What I want the American people to know, what I want the Congress to know is that I am profoundly sorry for all I have done wrong in words and deeds. I never should have misled the country, the Congress, my friends or my family.

Hastert's "apology":

I'm sorry -- you know, when you talk about the page issue and what's happened in the Congress, I'm deeply sorry that this has happened.

Anyone who can't tell the difference is bring willfully obtuse. One said he was sorry he'd done wrong, while the other said he was sorry to be in a mess. Damn betcha he's sorry "this has happened"; if everyone I knew was speculating on my holding on to my job, I'd be sorry the precipitating events happened, too, whether or not I had anything to do with them.

This doesn't prove Clinton was sincere (can anything prove sincerity?), but at least he gave a real apology. The fact that he chose to write a book that wasn't about his shame is hardly relevant as to whether he apologized.

That's YOUR opinion, of course. Hastert has agreed to testify undr oath -- why hasn't Pelosi?

While the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct "The Ethics Committee" is investigating potential violations of House rules, the Justice Department appeared to be moving with dispatch in its criminal investigation.

Timothy Heaphy, a lawyer for ex-Foley chief of staff Kirk Fordham, said his client had just met with the FBI. Fordham emerged as a key figure Wednesday when he told reporters that he had talked three years ago with top aides to Hastert about Foley's conduct with pages. His comments pushed back the time when information may have reached the Speaker's office.

Ethics Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., and ranking Democrat Howard Berman of California would provide no details on the subpoenas but told a news conference the committee was seeking both testimony and documents.

Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said the Speaker had not yet received a subpoena from the Ethics Committee but was willing to testify. "If the Ethics Committee asks him to, of course," Bonjean told The Associated Press.

Several lawmakers and aides could logically be summoned, based on what is known so far. The committee also could subpoena former lawmakers and staff, including Foley, a Florida Republican, and Fordham. However, the House has no authority to punish anyone no longer a member of Congress or an employee.

According to public statements and an internal review by Hastert's office, a likely list of those who had some involvement in events and could be summoned include: Hastert aides Tim Kennedy, Mike Stokke, Ted Van Der Meid and Scott Palmer; former Clerk of the House Jeff Trandahl; Rep. Rodney Alexander, R-La., who became aware that Foley sent questionable e-mails to a page he sponsored; Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y., who spoke with Alexander about Foley; Majority Leader John Boehner; and Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., chairman of the board that oversees the page program.

Hastings and Berman, in an unusual procedural move, said they will personally lead the investigation, joined by Reps. Judy Biggert, R- Ill., whose district adjoins Hastert's, and Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D- Ohio. Their investigative subcommittee thus has two Republicans and two Democrats.

"We pledge to you that our investigation will go wherever the evidence leads us," Hastings said.

Berman said the committee did not consider suggestions from congressional watchdog groups and editorial writers to name an outside counsel. He said the committee could do the job without partisanship.

"We have, we all have strong feelings about party, about issues, about philosophy. But for purposes of this investigation, those feelings are irrelevant. And I think that's all that the chairman and I are trying to say," Berman said.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/10/05/D8KIOLP81.html

Chasing fantasies while ignoring real threats defines the modern Republican Party.

100% accurate.

Holding you to at least the WMD standard, don't you have to have SOME proof Foley ever had, you know, actual sex with an underage page?

I am deeply shocked Thomas1 has not replied to my comment calling BS on his absurd and factually flawed invocation of a man who was president six years ago.

And no, we don't need proof Foley had sex with anyone. We know (1) he sent messages that violate the law he sponsored and, more importantly, shock the conscience; and (2) the House leadership was repeatedly warned they might have a sexual predator - starting a minimum of one year ago and a possible five years ago - and at the very least chose not to investigate.

Next, please.

It is kinda funny to watch all my fellow Democrats who were defending Clinton to the hilt, suddenly use the same exact tactics against Hastert they were decrying the GOP of. For the record, I have been consistent -- I didn't support calls for Clinton's resignation, and I don't support calls for Hastert's resignation.

Holding you to at least the WMD standard, don't you have to have SOME proof Foley ever had, you know, actual sex with an underage page?

Uh, no, because that's not the only wrongdoing that could be involved.

The wrongdoing includes sexually harassing pages, contributing to the delinquency of minors with regard to alcohol, breaking the Walsh act which he wrote, etc., all of which there is plenty of evidence for now.

Actual sex with an underage page would, of course, be even worse, and I wouldn't be surprised if that came out as well, but, no, actual evidence of that should not have been required for the leadership to have investigated, nor is it required to say that their failure to investigate sheltered serious wrongdoing.

Warren Terra:

I thought that I acknowledged you, of course, are entitled to YOUR opinion. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm the one putting things into context. You were the one to ignore me pointing out that Hastert has agreed to testify under oath -- why hasn't Pelosi?

my fellow democrats

Pull the other one.

P.S. I didn't defend Clinton (scroll up; I'll wait). I said your (irrelevant) comparison was purest crap. I showed the evidence. You haven't responded.

Chris:

For the last time, I posted, in their entirety, the emails (as opposed to the IMs which no GOP leader saw) and asked you what specifically you thought should have "warned" Republicans of problems needing investigation and action -- you have still not replied to that question -- I also said I am fine running every homosexual out of Washington, D.C.

As I said, your choice.

It is kinda funny to watch all my fellow Democrats who were defending Clinton to the hilt, suddenly use the same exact tactics against Hastert they were decrying the GOP of. For the record, I have been consistent -- I didn't support calls for Clinton's resignation, and I don't support calls for Hastert's resignation.

While I suppose never calling for anyone's resignation is mindlessly "consistent", I don't see any meaningful analogy between Clinton and Hastert.

Plus, most of the people I've seen calling for Hastert's resignation have been on the right, more likely to be worried that Hastert's disgrace will benefit Democrats (like the Washington Times) than to support Democrats.

For the last time, I posted, in their entirety, the emails

I don't recall you posting them, and I don't really care.

asked you what specifically you thought should have "warned" Republicans of problems needing investigation and action

The parts that they realized where inappropriate that motivated them to tell Foley to knock it off; you can hardly argue that they shouldn't have realized there was a problem when they, by their own admission, realized there was a problem but just chose not to look into it.

I also said I am fine running every homosexual out of Washington, D.C.

Well, yeah, I bet you would be.

Warren:

My point was only for Democrats who blindly supported Clinton.

Chris:

Those on the right calling for Hastert's resignation are playing right into the left's hand. Again, why won't Pelosi agree to testify under oath?

I saw your comment about Pelosi. Because it wasn't hyperlinked to anything, I assumed it was a nonsequitor or a fabrication. I'd be surprised if Pelosi - or for that matter anybody - were to publically say they plan not to cooperate with a serious nonpartisan investigation, especially while calling for an investigation.

What, precisely, is Pelosi's role in all this supposed to be? We now know that Republican congressmen and their aides were discussing Foley and contacting Hastert and/or his office for one to five years; that the Democrat on the page board was not informed; that a Republican aide has been identified as the person who leaked the emails; that the IM's came out when the people who'd been IM'd contacted ABC News after they saw the email story; and that Hastert and his colleagues have told contradictory stories about what they knew and when they knew it (some contradicting themselves).

So what is it that you see the Democrats having done here?

What I "see" the Democratic leaders doing is knowing underaged children were participating in the IMs (unlike Hastert) and, instead of doing everything cmdicely thinks should have been done, timing their release for maximum political damage.

The "link" for Pelosi was provided already: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news3.html

Again, why won't Pelosi agree to testify under oath?

The only thing I've seen Pelosi asked to swear under oath about—including in the URL you provided—is in response to McHenry's attempt to ferret out whether she was involved in getting the story to the media. Since such a release of information about wrongdoing that the leadership is failing to act on is neither illegal nor unethical, there is no reason for her to "testify" about it, and its quite appropriate to refuse to participate in McHenry's nakedly partisan inquiry.

I have seen no indication that Pelosi will not cooperate in any way requested by either the FBI, other law enforcement, or the House Ethics Committee in their investigations of the matter at hand, including testifying under oath if asked.

It's a theory, I'll grant it that.

Only two problems with it: lack of evidence, and lack of any freaking evidence whatsoever.

As I noted above, the news media got the emails from a Republican. The IM's were provided by Foley's victims after they saw news coverage of the emails (no link here, but I could find one if I tried).

So, your theory must be:
1) The news media collaborated to sit on the emails until late September, to help the Democrats (and, mind you, Pelosi knew about it).
2) The Democrats had previously independently gotten the IM's, but the Republicans had not. Then the Democrats, knowing about the IM's, didn't use them.

In your world, does this make sense?

P.S. Where is the report that Pelosi said she wasn't going to cooperate with an investigation?

What I "see" the Democratic leaders doing is knowing underaged children were participating in the IMs

Where, other than in your fantasies, do you see this?

The "link" for Pelosi was provided already: http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/100506/news3.html

That's not a link. That's a URL. This is a link, pretty much the fundamental defining feature of "hypertext" on which the whole Web is built. See the difference?

Ah, there's the link. As I read it, the Dem's flatly say (1) they didn't know early and (2) McHenry's attempt to shift the question to "who blew the coverup" is despicable.

They didn't refuse to cooperate in any sort of real investigation.

Color me shocked you mischaracterized the situation.

Then why is the liberal-leaning group that blew this all up, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), being accused of not fully cooperating with the FBI too?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501657.html

Back on the topic, it is interesting in that article to confirm Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defending the FBI's handling of the original e-mails: "The e-mails, while inappropriate, did not contain a criminal predicate to allow the FBI to move forward in an investigation." Sounds about right to me.

Sorry for getting a "link" confused with a URL -- I'm not used to all this Internet technology like you young folk.

More news:

Calling the timing "suspicious," House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert said the delay in disclosing former Rep. Mark Foley's improper messages to male pages has put kids at risk. In an interview with NewsMax.com late Thursday, Hastert said anyone who knew of the sordid instant messages Foley was sending to congressional pages should have notified authorities immediately.

"If somebody knew of these messages and didn't come forward, they were putting kids in jeopardy -- for a year, for a month or for a day," the Illinois Republican said. Press reports indicate that several of Mark Foley's instant messages were three years old. Other media outlets have confirmed that one or more third parties were shopping a story about Foley's e-mail almost a year ago.

As evidence that Democrats were involved in the timing, Hastert said the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee had Foley's explicit electronic messages before Hastert did. "The DCCC was ready to go," Hastert said. "We were told by sources that they had that information on a Thursday night before we did, or Wednesday. They were up ahead of us for a day before we ever knew it was going to happen [on Friday]."

Hastert said the messages came out "on the last day after Foley can't get his name off the ballot, and we're leaving for a national campaign, and then this thing falls. It's kind of an October surprise, I guess you'd call it."

For the record, that "liberal-leaning" characterization was the Washington Post's, not mine. More on CREW for those interested:

After getting the spotlight for bringing Rep. DeLay down, CREW was retained by Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson as successor counsel and Joseph Cotchett and Frank Pitre with the law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy as trial counsel in their civil lawsuit.

CREW has been active only since February [2003], so its profile is still relatively low. Yet Republicans detect a strong Democratic orientation. [CREW's Executive Director Melanie] Sloan, most recently an assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, is a former aide to Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del.; then-Rep. (now Sen.) Charles Schumer, D- N.Y.; and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich. In addition, CREW's three board members are Mark Penn, President Clinton's former pollster; Daniel Berger, a trial lawyer from Philadelphia and a Clinton fundraiser; and Louis Mayberg, the president of a mutual fund company.

Daniel Berger is an attorney and big-money donor to Democrats or their allies — $100,000 to America Coming Together last May and $13,750 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee the following month

"Who is CREW?" The Hill, March 30, 2005 (sorry -- no "link" so I guess that means newspapers don't exist anymore either).