Republican Congressman Sends Sex Messages to Underage Boys

Yes, maybe like a promise to realize that life isnt about battling political/philosophical/religious ideologies, but trying to figure out how to be a good person and affect the lives of other people positively. We are all connected in some way, might as well help each other out.

...and with that naivete and corniness, I am out!

 

The republicans really need to learn more about "family values". Really, all this lying and sex and scandal shows that the moral fiber of the Republican party is suffering greatly.

We need to look to the liberals to restore the balance.

 

Can't blame him, there are some hot page boys around.

On the other hand, with such people, the world might be doubting the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.

 

its really hard to believe, but its right there on tape. one of the presidents legal advisors actually said that he has the authority to have a childs testicles crushed infront of his parents.

bush is a christian though, so it must be good.

 

John Choon Yoo (born 1967), a professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). A Korean-born American, he is best known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.

He contributed to the PATRIOT Act and wrote controversial memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Convention as a means of diminishing legal challenges regarding war crimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Yoo

 

More on Yoo...

 

Do you think this Foley guy was a conservative Republican first or a pedophile first?

 

he was a conservative Republican first then stepped up to the next level

 

Maybe Alan Keyes is available. . . .again

Rocket River

 

http://www.sptimes.com/Worldandnation/91298/Congress_sees_through.html

WASHINGTON -- For more than a week, members of Congress said they would avoid partisan politics when they got Kenneth Starr's report on President Clinton. But when they finally saw it Friday, they split along party lines.

Republicans were aghast at Clinton's behavior, with many saying it showed he had lied and abused his power.

"It's vile," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-West Palm Beach. "It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction."

Democrats said they, too, were troubled by the explicit details about Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. But several Democrats said there was nothing in the report to justify impeachment.

"It's tabloid," said Rep. Albert Wynn, D-Md. He said the report was a sensational account of the times and locations of Clinton and Lewinsky's sexual encounters, but it did not break any new ground about the allegations against the president.

"I don't think you need to know the times or the hallways" where the encounters took place, Wynn said.

Clinton's fate now lies with Congress.

Next week, the House of Representatives is expected to formally send Starr's report to the Judiciary Committee, which will decide whether to recommend impeachment proceedings. The full House would then decide whether to impeach the president. If that happens, the case will then move to the Senate, where the case would be tried with senators sitting as jurors.

Some of the strongest reaction Friday was in response to Starr's account of Lewinsky performing oral sex on Clinton as he chatted with members of Congress on the telephone.

That was "just sad," Foley said. "It's unbelievable that he could behave so carelessly in that setting."

Starr's report said Clinton was on the telephone with Rep. Sonny Callahan, R-Ala., during his second sexual encounter with Lewinsky. Callahan, in a prepared statement, said he was talking to Clinton about the American mission in Bosnia. He said he "had no knowledge I was sharing the president's time or attention with anyone else."

Rep. Thomas Davis, R-Va., said the report is "worse than I had thought. Starr lays out a very strong case."

"I have read enough of the report to believe we should have an impeachment hearing," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas. "I think the president has a very serious problem on his hands."

Rep. Constance Morella, R-Md., said the report "read like a novel. I was very shocked by the graphic nature of it."

But Democrats said the report centered on a personal sexual relationship that did not warrant action by the House.

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York said that in the atmosphere of "rancorous partisanship" gripping Congress, some members "are demanding a moral standard for the president that is higher than they would set for themselves."

Next week, the Judiciary Committee's first task will be to determine how much of the evidence can be released to the public. The committee has until Sept. 28 to review about 2,600 additional pages of evidence to determine what is releasable. Some committee members could begin looking at the documents today.

The committee's primary task, though, will be determining whether to recommend Clinton be impeached. That could be contentious because the judiciary committee is one of the most partisan in Congress.

Among the 19 Republicans are Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, one of Clinton's strongest critics. The 15 Democrats include Rep. Robert Wexler of Boca Raton, one of Clinton's most loyal supporters.

Wexler said Friday: "There was nothing in the report that laid out a case (that Clinton) tampered with witnesses or obstructed justice. The president has betrayed his wife, but I don't think he has betrayed the American people."

Two other Florida Republicans on the committee, Bill McCollum of Longwood and Charles Canady of Lakeland, also are expected to play prominent roles in the inquiry.

Despite the growing partisan rhetoric, Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill., vowed the process would be fair.

"Due process and fundamental fairness will be observed," Hyde said. "We're going to wait and hear what the president has to say."
-- Information from Reuters and Bloomberg was used in this report.

 

further proof that republicans have no sense of irony.

 

I blame this incident on terrorists. The Republican congressman and by extension, his page, are the victims of Islamic extremism. In the future, situations like this can be prevented through waterboarding, extrajudicial killings, invading Iran, and racial profiling. Yes. This is true.

 

Was he part of the Bush adminstration when he said that? Also, was this a hypothetical question posed in this debate, or were they asking him about specific references from his time in the Bush adminstration (concerning what you mentioned earlier).

None of this is stupid, passive aggressive rhetorical questioning (because I am definitely not trying to defend this adminstration). I really would like to know the answers to these questions.

 

If our leaders cannot molest underage children, the terrorists have already won.

 

This goes beyond Republican vs. Democrat stuff. This is criminal endangerment of a child. If anyone attempted to hide, cover up, or even not report this, that is a criminal offense. This isn't "politics".".

 

i agree completely.

i may be posting this late...i haven't kept up with this story this weekend...but these were emails to kids he knew. this isn't strangers over the internet. that leads me to think there MIGHT have actually been real physical contact.

is that already known, one way or the other??

 

the last part you said is what i was asking.

i was aware these were congressional pages. i'm assuming that means he actually knew them...he had email addresses and the conversations seemed somewhat familiar, from what i read.

 

i dont take it as "stupid, passive aggressive rhetorical questioning". i will try to answer as best i can.

he was not a part of the bush administration when he said that. however, he was part of it from 01-03, helped draft the patriot act as well as the redefining of torture. the issues being debated are certianly relevant to his time spent in the bush administration.

i dont know if it was hypothetical or something that horrible actually happened. based on the fact that prisoners have had glow sticks shoved up their asses and children have been tortured, it wouldnt suprise me at all if what was mentioned actually has happened.

yoo worked very closely w/ the white house and alberto gonzales was the author of the august 1, 2002 "torture memos"

"The memo concluded, among other things, that only severe pain or permanent damage that was "specifically intended" constituted torture. Mere "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment did not qualify."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6733213/site/newsweek/

if you dont believe that murder and rape is occuring under our watch will you at least believe REPUBLICAN senator lindsey grahm?
"Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters, "The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. we're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience." He did not elaborate."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/08/iraq/main616338.shtml

or journalist seymour hersch, who stated "that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, "You haven't begun to see evil..." then trailed off. He said, "horrible things done to children and women prisoners, as the cameras run." [7]"

At an ACLU convention in July 2004, he further detailed information he had been given about sexual tortures in Abu Ghraib [8]. He claims that there is video footage, being held by the Bush administration, of Iraqi guards raping young boys in the prison. "The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

the bottom line is, we have one of bush's former legal councils saying the president can basically do whatever he wants, even sexually torture children. if that isnt dictatorial powers i dont know what is.

and just to be clear, when someone asks if the president has the authority to have a childs testicles crushed infront of their parents there is only one correct answer and it's "ABSOLUTELY NOT".