ABC News: Foley Not the Only One

I'm not sure that this can be interpreted in too many different ways- it reads to me like the republican source in this article is saying Foley was not the only 'problem' congressman they have.

"A former senior Republican official in Congress says Foley was one of a handful of members and staff whose behavior with pages was being closely watched."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

If this has been posted already please let me know so I can take it down.

•  Not closely enough

  Foley was one of a handful of members and staff whose behavior with pages was being closely watched

  by JuliaAnn on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:49:06 PM PDT

  •  methinks you're minsinterpreting the situation...

    closely watched = voyeuristically

    by Trix on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:00:16 PM PDT

•  OMG, just how big is this?

  A former senior Republican official in Congress says Foley was one of a handful of members and staff whose behavior with pages was being closely watched.

  But so far Foley is the only member whose overt sexual approaches have been documented.

  Thanks for pointing this out.

  by rage on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:50:17 PM PDT

  •  "Been documented"

    Read, "gotten out from under the cover-up".

    by justme on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:21:30 PM PDT

•  Wow

  This story is growing legs so fast I can't keep up!

  This is also the third comment today I've had to caption with, "wow"!

  by oscarsmom on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:50:33 PM PDT

•  They're going to drag a Dem in, too?

  Just a guess.

  by Bob Johnson on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:51:21 PM PDT

  •  That was my first thought. n/t

    by patriot spear on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:51:57 PM PDT

    •  What I just posted as well. n/t

      by catnap1972 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:53:10 PM PDT

    •  I can't believe that

      if a Dem was involved, it wouldn't be blasted from the MSM 24/7 until our TVs exploded. Not possible that the Rethugs would have let it remain quiet for even 10 seconds.

      by Lisa Lockwood on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:54:09 PM PDT

      •  Even if a Dem is brought up,

        wouldn't Hastert be responsible at some level?  Isn't the House under his oversight?  To what extent is his office expected to monitor pages assigned to Dem representatives as well as Repub ones?

        by Dale on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:23:20 PM PDT

      •  I could see

        them holding something like that for October, though.

        Naaaaaahhhhhhhh.

        by justme on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:23:58 PM PDT

  •  Bob I really, really appreciated

    your diary today--but by the time I got there it was way too long to post a trivial comment like that!

    by oscarsmom on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:53:03 PM PDT

  •  I believe it's happened before.

    One Rep, one Dem, one girl, one boy, and everyone else was clean as a whistle.

    by zic on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:57:20 PM PDT

  •  I insist leadership tell us all about dems NOW.

    Joe Scarbouroughs implied invitation for mutual silence is declined: if Hastert's been holding back on ANY OTHER representatives, he should come up with it NOW.

    by Inland on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:00:56 PM PDT

  •  Well

    Honestly, if a Democrat engaged in the same conduct that Foley is accused of doing, then he/she should face accountability too. Republican or Democrat, this behavior is unacceptable.

    by jiacinto on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:36:08 PM PDT

•  Inquiring minds want to know

  Was Foley the only "member," and were the rest "staff"?  Or are there other "members" involved???

  by oscarsmom on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:51:31 PM PDT

  •  This mind is interested in other stuff.

    Like were the kids in Foley's neighborhood, etc., okay?

    by zic on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:58:14 PM PDT

  •  This post...

    ...is just wrong on so many levels... ;)

    by Corwin Weber on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:23:36 PM PDT

•  Keith Just F***ed....

  BillO & Sludge...They Both Make Worst Person In The World....

  by PLHeart on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:52:28 PM PDT

  •  Same comment spammed in 7 different diary threads

    Please consider downrating it or withdrawing your 4s.

    by Rita in DC on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 10:53:42 AM PDT

•  Sounds like they're planning some "balance"

  And intending on tarring some librulz

  Just watch!

  by catnap1972 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:52:41 PM PDT

•  About 5% . . .

  About 5% of the adult male population are pedophiles.  Therefore, it is more than likely that some other people in the House or the House's staff are perpetrators, also.

  by Dar Nirron on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:08:57 PM PDT

  •  ummm... got a citation for that?

    I find it very hard to believe that 1 in 20 men is a pedophile.

    by Trix on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:11:12 PM PDT

    •  No reply = no citation.

      It's a preposterous claim when you think about the numbers involved.  

      by lonemorriscodem on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:24:19 PM PDT

      •  of course its preposterous

        I'd be surprised if the real number even approached 0.5%

        by Trix on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:26:59 PM PDT

        •  No comment actually means . . .

          No comment actually means that I have been working twelve hour days (4 hours at one job, 8 hours at the other), and I occasionally have to do domestic duties such as wash dishes, do laundry, and even sleep.

          Here is a citation for you:

          http://www.cpa-apc.org/...

          (This particular quote starts on page 3, and continues on page 4.)

          " . . . Further, the actual incidence and prevalence of  the paraphilias is unknown (18,19). What is known is that the level of victimization of males and females in the general population is fairly consistent. As initially reported by Kinsey in the late 1940s, 24% of females had been victims of sexual abuse when they were 14 years of age or younger (20). A national  survey in Canada in 1984 found that 23.5 % of females and 12.8% of males were victims of childhood sexual abuse (21),which is quite consistent with Kinsey’s data. This may assist in gauging the prevalence of one paraphilia, specifically, pedophilia. For example, it is known that among identified pedophiles, approximately 35% were victims of sexual abuse as children.  The average number of victims per pedophile is also known.  It may therefore be possible to estimate the prevalence of pedophilia in the general population through extrapolation. In one study of sexual fantasies, two-thirds of males reported heterosexual pedophilic fantasies and about one-third of males had rape fantasies (22). As the presence of deviant sexual fantasies is an indication of the presence of a paraphilia at a mild level, this implies that mild pedophilia is prevalent at a staggeringly high rate in men in the general population. Further, assuming that the presence of rape fantasies indicates the presence of another paraphilia, specifically sexual sadism, then mild sadism would also be highly prevalent in the population at large. In my opinion, these are gross overestimates of the prevalence of mild pedophilia and sexual sadism. However, even if these figures were overestimated by a factor of 10, and the real levels are 6% and 3%, these disorders would still have a vastly higher prevalence than most other psychiatric disorders. At this time, the prevalence of paraphilias in the general population is unknown, and the prevalence of compulsive sexual behaviour is also unknown."

          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          What this highly technical article about drug treatments for a variety of paraphilias is saying:  Our best estimates, based on reported rates of child sexual abuse, and based on reported rates of known predation by offenders who are caught, is that pedophilia is approximately 6% of the adult male population.  About what I said.

          I have also found, consistently, when I have asked people in various settings, "How many of you women were sexually abused as children?"  one fourth of them respond affirmatively.

          When I was a member of an Episcopal church in Indianapolis, the church sent its Sunday School teachers to a workshop/convention about curriculum and other issues in running Christian education.  At a plenary session, the issue of child sexual abuse was raised, and there were techniques and recommendations for keeping children safe.  At that time, the speaker gave the same 5% figure that I did in my previous comment.  He also stated that 25% of girls were victims.

          Later that evening, at dinner, some of the women at our table for 12 voiced incredulity at these figures.  "There can't possibly be that many girls who are victims!"  Instantly, three of us said, "I was!"  Three out of twelve--25%.

          by Dar Nirron on Wed Oct 04, 2006 at 05:57:54 AM PDT

•  Rerun of Abramoff

  Try and tar some Dems, however tangentally and nonsensically, and say "They do it too".

  And OUR enabling press will let them get away with it.

  by Rico on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:09:29 PM PDT

  •  And if there are Democrats involved....

    ...we kick their asses.  Hard.

    And then we kick Hastert's for concealing it from us to protect his own.

    If 'Democratic involvement' consists of 'but but but but OMG QUEERS!!!!111' or faked emails/IM's.....

    Then things will get very ugly.  And damned well should.

    by Corwin Weber on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:26:21 PM PDT

    •  "If there are Democrats involved"

          The repugs would have been blasting their names nonstop on faux news since Friday.

         

      by Muttly on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:18:14 PM PDT

      •  I'm inclined to agree....

        ...but with this bunch I suppose you never can be absolutely sure.

        by Corwin Weber on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:54:33 PM PDT

•  Damn straight

  Hastert, Shimkus, Reynolds, Alexander, Boehner...

  If they were shielding him, how can we be sure about them?

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:10:51 PM PDT

•  Well, presumably it's conceivable that the...

  ...other ones who were being watched were Democrats. On the other hand, I'm sure if that had been the case that the "senior Republican official" would have been more than happy to say so.

  by StupidAsshole on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:11:10 PM PDT

•  ABC is afraid of GOP retribution

  The right wing blogs have been going on and on about this being politically motivated. To look "balanced", ABC will find some way to drag Democrats into this and help Republicans in November.

  by JamesB3 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:13:31 PM PDT

  •  Can you say

    Path to 9/11?

    I'm kind of shocked ABC is on this dick at all.

    by justme on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:25:28 PM PDT

    •  Ratings, my friend...

      ...before last Friday, had not ABC World News Tonight fallen to No.3 in the ratings after Katie Couric's CBS debut?  Party loyalty be damned.  Nothing drives ratings like a salacious scandal!

      Also, if I'm not mistaken, the ABC News division had no input into "Path...", which was pushed by higher-ups in the Disney conglomerate.

      by iwsterling on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:16:14 PM PDT

  •  CIA's revenge for Plame...?

    Last time I checked, ABC was owned by Capitol Cities Communication, and one of the large shareholders in that was former CIA director Casey.

    So here's a wild hypothesis for you.  Maybe there are former CIA who are helping ABC get the facts?  Very interesting that ABC constantly has the scoop on this.  

    It would be a fitting payback for the Plame outing.  "You out one of ours, we'll out one of yours; ours was a patriot, yours is a pervert!"

    by G2geek on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:42:53 PM PDT

•  For years, now, there's been a conspiracy theory

  ...about a big Republican pedophile ring/cult. I've heard it since at least the early 90's. I've always thought it was bullshit--though it's not beyond the bounds of possibility: anyone remember that big pedo ring that got busted in Belgium and that involved senior members of the government?

  Now I'm starting to wonder whether there mightn't be something to this CT.

  by StupidAsshole on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:13:33 PM PDT

  •  this one...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    http://www.voxfux.com/...

    for anyone curious what you're talking about

    by dc 20005 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:20:56 PM PDT

    •  Wow, thanks. Interesting n/t

      by StupidAsshole on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:23:56 PM PDT

      •  This looks far less out-in-left field than...

        ...I thought.

        by StupidAsshole on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:24:45 PM PDT

        •  Gannon/Guckert, too n/t

          by oblomov on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 07:06:16 PM PDT

•  Of course there is MORE than one Repub.

  Why do you think it took so long for Foley to fall?

  He had help from the OUTSIDE not the inside. The predator ring hangs together.

  They pass information, likely "subjects" or targets, amongst each other and they protect each other.

  If ONE goes down there would be great fear the others would be dragged into the emerging scandal  and down as well. So they cover as much as they can.

  It wasn't"bad judgement",it was intentional.

  That is why Foley survived as long as he did with his secret. The others couldn't afford to have him outed.

   Now that it is out, it is every predator for himself.

   You are thinking it was "bad judgement". Ha! There is way too much of that from people intelligent enough and cunning enough to survive for years in politics at the national level.  No mistake, there is more than one or two that is dirty.

  by Pete Rock on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:29:01 PM PDT

•  Looks like this thread is about to drop off...

  Thanks for the comments everybody.

  by patriot spear on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:30:51 PM PDT

•  Obviously, the answer is to

  hand over the security of the pages to some men, preferably 45-60, single or divorced, gay or straight, healthy and with a good sexual appetite and a feeling that their best years will be behind them soon. I think that's the ticket to a wholesome situation.

  by BoringDem on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:31:01 PM PDT