The odd thing about PredatorGate (Mark Foley(R-FL)).....

This has been sitting my head for awhile .... figured I should go on and put it out there... I'm not carving anything new out of this story, and I'm only claiming to possibly check a trickle of the GOP spin machine.

Enjoy (please).

Obviously, if I were to say something like "I told you so," without having access to hard evidence, people from all sides would correctly call me a whack-nut job. Including me.

However, in a different place with a different context I think I wrote:

OK, OK,

I have no love for Tucker Carlson.

In fact, I really want to write, "Tucker Carlson is Pedophile and child molester (based on the 9/11 commission report)" and disclaim that statement by calling it a "docudrama."

Obviously, that's just an overly mean slur directed at a kinda mean (if really, really harmless) talking head. Tucker's a decent reporter, I guess, but not so good an anchor. Just search youtube for Jon Stewart on Crossfire and you'll see what I mean. (Jon's reaction is quite good!)

I was curious to see what anchor-ly indignation Tucker (bite that lip, Tuck!) might express about Mark Foley, but it wouldn't be interesting unless Mike Papantonio is involved:

"Go to the Internet, read what this Pedophile freak was saying to this child." - you won't believe the lame defense offered by the Rev. Mike Watkins, shill for Republican Jesus.

You can listen to Mike, alongside Robert Kennedy, Jr., on their weekend show, Ring of Fire. Their new book is available here:



Now, on to the Bush Administration's response to PredatorGate: it's a very similar to their response to PlameGate, and we all know how that turned out, don't we?

"I have no knowledge of who leaked the identity of a covert CIA agent, and I'll fire anyone involved" translates into:

"I am the one who authorized the leaks, and since I declassified the information it isn't a big deal. I'm not firing anybody who isn't threatened with jail time."

That's a high moral standard, don't you think?

We can see where Reps. Reynolds and Hastert got their playbook for dealing with Mark Foley -- do nothing until it becomes public and the FBI investigates. Answer no questions after your public statements, lie about that - repeatedly - and if possible, make your public statements about sexual molestation only while surrounded by children.

But we need to understand a few key concepts in this whole thing:

• There is a cover up. At some level, an elected official made decision to merely verbally warn Foley after they gained knowledge of the explicit messages to under aged kids.
• There are more than one page involved. They were underage when initially inappropriately contacted by Foley.
• Foley's contributions to the GOP were at such times they are likely bribes to buy silence regarding his behavior, and this is currently under investigation.
  

And there's one final point that must not ever be forgotten: the scandal surrounding Mark Foley (R-FL) erupted at exactly the right moment to steal the headlines from the recently passed bill that gutted the U.S. Constitution.

That's right. Because our media establishment in this country cares more for sensational titles, and the GOP loves talking about homosexuals, because they cannot admit that Habeus Corpus is fundamental to our country's sense of character.

What did my Grandfather fight for in World War II if not the basic freedoms guaranteed us by the Constitution and its first ten amendments?

If you're confused, and I know how easy it can be, watch Keith Olberman describe exactly what happened with the Military Commisisons Act of 2006. And mourn with me as Keith lays Habeus Corpus to rest.

Stephen Colbert gives away the gameplan:

Dear Senate Majority Leader scareydoodle

Sen. Frist,

I apologize for taking so long to post this memo. I've been busy doing what I can to prevent covert officials from doing their jobs and discovering a truth that disagrees with us. Your welcome in advance.

I'm writing in response to your recent petition request regarding the Flag Burning Amendment.Please allow me to send you my sincere condolences for your failur to push through your agenda.

You say you pushed this amendment because you don't think the flag should be desecrated, and not because you hate the first amendment. Therefore, it is most important that you address, or re-address explicitly, the flag desecration statutes already on the books. Specifically: U.S. Code, title 4, Chapter One. We'd hate to have a bloated Government rife with duplications, wouldn't we? Think how many Departments of Homeland Security would have to be created just to sort through the different laws pertaining to the flag!

You should also stand tall, and tell the President he did indeed descrate the flag, and YOU WON'T STAND FOR FLAG DESECRATION:

• We impeached Clinton for a stain on a dress.


• We must send the proper message to America:


• The FLAG, symbol of our great nation, is greater than a mere dress.


• IF President Bush has stained the flag, we must tell him what "is" is!!!

Also, in an unrelated matter, I know that you are a supporter of open markets and not a fascist, so I know I don't need to worry about your support for Net Neutrality. You do support Net Neutrality, don't you?

Oh and before I go, please stop the Lie-and-Die rhetoric. I know it's a great piece of TP to say that the War in Iraq is not strenghtening the terorrists. As a USAA member, I am deeply offended by your ignorance regarding war, and must ask you to refrain from lying.

That would go a long ways toward allowing our soldiers to stop dying.