Drudge: lurid IM’s a prank gone wrong.

So how does this change the dynamic of this story? Check Drudge Report for more.

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX MON OCT 5 2006 2:53:48 ET XXXXX

CLAIM: FILTHY FOLEY ONLINE MESSAGES WERE PAGE PRANK GONE AWRY
**World Exclusive**
**Must Credit the DRUDGE REPORT**

According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats. This source, an ally of Edmund, also adamantly reports that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund.

The news come on the heels that former FBI Chief Louis Free has been named to investigate the mess.

Developing…

86 comments

  1. griftdrift says:

    Ummmmmmmm. How is it a prank? Are they saying someone made up a ghostnic screenname and that it wasn’t Foley? This is a very weird allegation.

  2. Rusty says:

    LOL, I call B.S.

    The dude has already come out and said “I was abused by priests, am an alcoholic” etc. etc. etc.

    There’s just not enough lipstick that could ever be applied to this pig.

  3. stephaniemills21 says:

    so, the pages tricked Foley into the IM conversation? Does not matter. There were other pages, and other allegations. And, Foley thought the conversation was real, so that does not get him off the hook.

  4. CHelf says:

    It’s not just liberal Democrats. There are some people who are still principled on moral issues and who aren’t quick to spin everything into some partisan fight. It could be flipped that it’s funny how conservative Republicans are jumping through hoops to tout this as fact.

    Why would a fellow GOP operative goad a GOP congressman into such a conversation? And who held a gun to a congressman’s head to have such conversations with someone even while casting votes?

    This still does not explain the emails, nor the inaction, nor the other former page from LA. This does not explain why Foley dropped from the FL Senate race, why he resigned, his alleged incident of being drunk trying to get into the page dorm, or all of the other claims floating around about him.

    The longer this issue floats, the more this will become some vast left wing conspiracy or comparison to RatherGate. The fact remains that Foley made some shady character choices and others made some poor judgment decisions. Saying Democrats do this as well cheapens this whole issue. Fact is that it happened and there were poor reponses in dealing with it.

  5. dingleberry says:

    Oh, quit your whining you bunch of liberal democrats.

    You’re all just so insecure with yourselves that you need to find a reason to “gay bash” Foley.

    You’re prejudice against his homosexuality…nevermind that the IMs were exhanged with an 18 year old.

    Facts are nothing to liberal democrats.

  6. RandyMiller says:

    You know, that is interesting….it’s like you’re hearing mostly about the “gay stuff” from the dems and never mind the age of the person it went to. This on the news, in the papers, and right here. Maybe the left decided not enough gay votes to care about so what the hell, we don’t need ’em any more?

  7. JRM2016 says:

    From The Hill:

    “The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.

    But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.”

    Wonder who’s paying him now?

    Anyway, IF the Page goaded him into writing sexually explicit IMs and IF this information was held by Dems to obtain political advantage until now, THEN this will blow up in Dems face.

    FYI–This is not a defense of Foley, it is simply pointing out that if this was held up to score political points, it will come out and it will turn around. That is the difference between GOP and Dems: GOP has zero tolerance for this, hence Foley’s immediate resignation as opposed to Dems Frank, Studds, etc.

    Nice move Dems: change conversation from Iraq to sex scandal which then blows up in your face.

    Perdue/Cagle/Handel/Black/McGuire ’06

  8. Rusty says:

    dingleberry,
    Nobody gives a shit if he’s gay. They give a shit that he’s a child predator.

    You didn’t answer my question: how do you sleep at night coming to the defense of a pederast?

  9. dingleberry says:

    The left never cared about gay votes.

    They cared about manipulating gay voters to suit their own purposes.

    As can be seen with the Foley incident, the Liberal Democrats will abandon the gay community in a heartbeat if it is politically beneficial…nevermind if their facts are wrong.

  10. dingleberry says:

    How is he a pederast? They supposed “lurid IMs” were made to an eighteen year old?

    Is the Liberal Democratic Party wanting to raise the age of consent? That would be a change!

  11. CHelf says:

    JRM….you are telling me that using this to score political points is wrong but sitting on this and doing nothing is fine? I guess inaction for political reasons is far more noble?

  12. griftdrift says:

    Oh forgive me, dingleberry. I thought you were referring to commentors on this thread. That must have been a mistake by moi. An innocent one I assure as I simply misunderstood the placement of your reply and the context. Providing a link to the Democratic Party Website sure clears that up!

  13. dingleberry says:

    GriftDrift,

    There are liberal democrats on this thread too:

    Rusty, Mad Dog, CHelf, JRM, Bill Simon, and StephanieMills21

  14. Rusty says:

    dingleberry,
    When Foley’s communications with pages were first reported to leadership, it was verified they were with a 16-year-old boy. That makes him an aspiring pederast. I’m a little curious where you’re getting 18 from, other than the one page who was outed.

    So I ask again: how do you sleep at night coming to the defense of a pederast?

  15. dingleberry says:

    It was assumed he was a 16 year old boy. But that turned out to be false.

    So, Rusty, how do you sleep at night being a Liberal Democrat!??!

  16. dingleberry says:

    Believe me Rusty, if I were coming to the defense of a pederast, the Liberal Democratic Party would be right behind me.

    As it is, I’m coming to the defense of a victim. A victim of alcohol and molestation…who committed no crime other than exchanging CONSENSUAL IMs with a fellow homosexual.

    For the Liberal Democrats, it’s convenient to brush aside the gay community…just like they always do.

  17. John Konop says:

    dingleberry

    Bill Simon?

    Do you support 50 year old guys hitting on teenage boys at the work place?

    If so What is your stance on gay marriage?

    This is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is about right or wrong!

  18. dingleberry says:

    John Konop,

    Are you accusing Bill Simon of hitting on teenage boys at the work place?

    I know he’s a Liberal Democrat, but you have nothing to back up such accusations!

  19. dingleberry says:

    I am a PROUD REPUBLICAN who is in favor of gay rights. Unlike the Liberal Democratic Party of Gay Abusers.

  20. dingleberry says:

    Rusty,

    It’s okay, I’m a member of the GOP. You can take me for my word.

    I know that’s a hard thing to do. Especially, being a Democrat…those Liberal Democrats lie all the time. But you can trust me!

  21. JRM2016 says:

    CHelf:

    GOPers knew about e-mails that can be best characterized as “goofy”. They looked into it, media orgs like the St. Petersburg Times also looked into the e-mails and all concluded there was nothing there. GOPers did not sit on lurid IM exchanges.

    Dems, if Drudge story proven true, had the IM conversations that were unmistakably sexual in July. They waited until now to launch an “October Surprise”. That means that for these Dems, they thought damaging the GOP politically was more important than disclosing the truth about the IMs when it first came to their attention.

    To Bill Simon: If The Hill story is accurate, then Drudge is wrong. But I am not ready to assume The Hill has it right and Drudge has it wrong. Let’s see how this plays out through the weekend.

    My prediction: CREW and other left-leaning orgs will be revealed to have had this information, the IMs, and sat on it until they felt they could cause maximum damage to the GOP w/o any regard to the safety of Congressional Pages.

  22. dingleberry says:

    Okay…I can’t take this anymore.

    I am JOKING!

    Foley should have his organ surgically removed. Republicans and Democrats should unite on this issue and force ALL who knew but chose not to disclose out! That means from both parties.

    I thought by now, you guys would have figured out that I was just antagonizing. Rusty, you were getting pissed! It was kind of funny.

    Anyway, let’s all be friends now.

    I don’t think that all democrats are “Liberal Democrats”

    or that Foley is innocent.

    I am with you guys 100%

    Cool?

  23. pvsys says:

    It turns out that the “boy” was actually 18 at the time of the instant messages and when ABC used the words “minor” and the phrase “under the age of 18” on this page (and others):

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/foley_resigns_o.html

    The identity of the page Foley was “messaging” with has been revealed and this page was 18 at that time. Therefore, ABC was flat out lying.

    In spite of John Konop’s use of the word “teenager”, every situation I know about of a sexual nature with Foley:

    (1) was with a legal adult, 18 or older
    (2) was concentual

    (or was a prank?)

    Therefore, I’m having a hard time figuring out how this situation differs from Bill Clinton and Monica.

    Can ANYONE point to ANY instant message which has been confirmed to be recieved by a page that was under 18? Or where the page was “hit upon” and not a concentual participant?

    NOT that this makes Foley’s behavior OK… but it definately puts this whole situation in a different light!

    Rob McEwen

  24. griftdrift says:

    JRM, two things. CREW has already admitted they received the info in July and turned it over to the Justice Department who apparently did nothing.

    As far as the St. Pete times, they had the emails, not the IMs, they followed it up but could not get the parents of the page to allow him to go on record and could not get any other reasonable sources. Since they could not fully substantiate such an ugly story they chose to not publish. They in no way determined it was nothing or sat on it. They followed their standards. That is all.

  25. Mad Dog says:

    I’ve been called a Liberal Democrat! I’ve been called a Liberal Democrat!I’ve been called a Liberal Democrat!I’ve been called a Liberal Democrat!

    I have arrived as a political insider!

  26. stephaniemills21 says:

    Dingleberry,

    Your name says it all.
    From the American Heritage Dictionary:
    A piece of dried feces caught in the hair around the anus

  27. Chris says:

    I’m still waiting for a reasonable explanation about the criminal element to this whole uproar when the age of consent is 16 where this occured. Has anyone uncovered victims under the age of consent? What do age of consent laws mean, it’s ok to engage in sex but not to flirt about it or discuss it in reasonably private settings?

  28. CHelf says:

    JRM,

    CREW sent what they had which were a group of emails to the FBI back in July. So they did not sit on it. How can you accuse anyone sitting on this when basically everyone had the same info? If liberals had this and waited until now to ‘out’ this, then the GOP had that same info and just sat on it to bury it. Either way both sides would have been using it for political advantage. But as of now, the GOP is the only side that has been proven to have had the info and did little to nothing at all.

    How is it that ABCNews had the same starting info as what was passed to the GOP House leadership and they came out with much more? Knowing what I do about DC, I don’t see that ABCNews had to do much digging to find out what they did. Why did they discover all of this and Hastert and Shimkus did not?

    And Rob, do you know for a fact that every single IM that has been released has come from this staffer from CA? What of the other ones? Can you guarantee all were from this alleged prank and all were from an 18 year old and this was consenual? Judging by the tone of the LA former page, I don’t think Foley’s conversations were consensual.

  29. stephaniemills21 says:

    Drudge has changed the story a bit. Might answer your last question Chelf

    The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

  30. pvsys says:

    CHelf:

    I’m note falling on my sword over this… but I just have a simple question.

    Can anyone now, with reasonable certainty, point to a sexually illicit IM involving Foley where one recipient was under 18?

    Simple question.

    Rob McEwen

  31. pvsys says:

    >Why did they discover all
    >of this and Hastert and Shimkus did not?

    Give me a break! They didn’t arrive there from what hastert originally knew… this stuff was “fed” to the news media by some “enterprising” folks who “laid in wait” until the right moment.

    http://www.blogactive.com/2005/03/mark-foley-anoteher-closeted-anti-gay.html

    (maybe the house Republican leadership should do some more “opposition research” on themselves to rid themselves of these problems in advance)

    –Rob McEwen

  32. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    I was watching former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough news show last night.
    And he said the next wave of the scandal will be outing of gay Republicans. Do you think this will be a problem? The reason I ask it seem to be hinted in the link you put up.

  33. CHelf says:

    Rob,

    I guess those silly GOP pranksters sold their info to Democratic operatives? If these GOP operatives knew and they passed this around to somehow eventually get to Democratic operatives are you telling me that somehow anyone on the right side of the aisle was immune and blind from seeing this same info? Am I to believe that this prank info went from GOP hands to Democratic hands and somehow the Dems held onto this for political purposes while the GOP was deaf, dumb, and blind??

    If the Dmes knew as your conspiracy theory alludes to then the GOP knew as well. Since these are the ones in charge of the page system and did nothing as well as let Foley go on about his business for many months, I’d find them more contemptible than Dems using this for their own political gain. I think the ones running the show and controlling the page program sitting on this is far worse than the Dems. In your words, give me a break.

  34. pvsys says:

    Obviously, SOME people (to varying degrees… and I can’t emphasis that enough!) knew about this stuff in advance… but just because a Republican staffer knew something didn’t mean that Republican leaders know about this any earlier than when the story broke.

    Likewise, just because some gay activist groups appearently knew about some of this doesn’t mean that Democrat leaders knew about it before the story broke (though I’m skeptical).

    Therefore, YOU are the one connecting strange dots, not me.

    –Rob McEwen

  35. pvsys says:

    Still waiting for an answer to this question:

    Can anyone now, with reasonable certainty, point to a sexually illicit IM involving Foley where one recipient was under 18?

  36. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    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 xxx were,” said the page in the 2002 class.

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

  37. CHelf says:

    Rob,

    So you can make allegations that the Dems knew more than they let on but without proof but not believe higher ups in the GOP did not know? That sounds like one sided conspiracy.

    If this prank story is true, then all this proves is that there were quite a few within the GOP that knew what was going on and still only after Foley resigned and even more days after did they come forward. So who is sitting on what?

  38. heroV says:

    pvsys:
    do you think it is acceptable for a Congressman to solicit a Congressional page, essentially an intern, in this way?

  39. John Konop says:

    Just to show how bad this post is read this from the same article.

    An online story on the Drudge Report Thursday claimed one set of the sexually explicit instant messages obtained by ABC News was part of a “prank” on the part of the former page, who reportedly says he goaded the congressman into writing the messages.

    “This was no prank,” said one of the three former pages who talked to ABC News today about his experience with the congressman.

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

    I am sure knowing Buzz he would not of posted this had he read what I did.

    BTW Rob as I said you are a smart guy with class, I thought you knew about this or I would of posted it sooner.

  40. buzzbrockway says:

    John,

    I read what Foley did. It’s disgusting and he was right to resign. I have not, nor would I defend his actions.

    However, the scriptures tell us not to prematurely judge a matter, which is what has happened in the case. Many people, who may or may not have done wrong have been attacked, yet the evidence to support the attacks is scant in my opinion.

    Now comes allegations that some people involved might have been playing a prank. If true, it does not excuse Foley’s behavior, but it sure does shed some light on the timing of the release of the IM’s just over a month before an election.

    Foley disgusts me, but so do those who are using this scandal to try to topple the Republican leadership and give control of Congress to the Democrats.

  41. Mojo says:

    Common tactic from the Republicans, they don’t answer the charges they just muddy the waters enough so that no one knows what is true and what is not. It’ll probably work like it always does.

  42. John Konop says:

    As far as the post I do not think you read of victims putting down the Druge Report. And the graphic details from that victim.

    As far as the Republican party would not of it been better to get rid of all the guys in the scandal and challenge Democrats to clean up their act? I am not the only conservative who thinks it is time we did some house cleaning. This is one of many issues in Washington. As you know I respect you even when we disagree.

    You should read this article;

    http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/conservatives-on-why-the-gop-should-lose-in-2006.

  43. Mad Dog says:

    Harry,

    “Anytime ethics and morality issues are covered in the media, it’s a good thing.”

    I agree with that. And, I would give Rob points for reminding us that not all the story is out, nor will we get all the story from one source.

    MD

  44. Mad Dog says:

    Harry,

    Given that it’s October and election year, you would be right about suspecting partisan activity.

    I’d hate to see it. I don’t like it. Not on either side.

    The needed level of proof wouldn’t be very high to some. (proof of dirty politics as usual)

    I don’t think the Dems need to fan any of these flames.

    Hastert doesn’t have to go. I really don’t care about that.

    “IF” he’s done something wrong, he should face some ‘justice.’ But, only in measure of what was wrongly done.

    If being stupid were a crime, no one could run for office.

    Some independent and skilled investigation is needed before ‘judging’ under the law, or Congressional ethics.

    I see no point in another sacrificial lamb.

    I’m more the “eye for an eye” kind of guy than I am a “kill them all and let God sort them out” type.

    I don’t see any winners in this scandal. After the scandal, maybe we’ll see a change for the better?

    We can hope.

  45. Mojo says:

    You know I’m sick and tired of Congress, and the Administration as well, whining about how they didn’t know this, or this happened without their control so they can’t really be held accountable. Screw that. Either Hastert actively participated in a coverup or he is so negligent and incompetent that it happened with or without his knowledge. If he did not participate in a coverup then he shouldn’t be allowed to claim that he still deserves and is capable of performing the duties of his important job as Speaker of the House. Either way Hastert should go and someone who actually can handle the job should be nominated. If the GOP retains control give it to Kingston, he seems capable.

  46. caroline says:

    John Konop,
    Apparently the fact that Foley was gay was an “open secret” around Washington. He never publicly admitted until recently though.

    The rumor is that the Republicans are going to be outing all their gay staff members and blaming the scandal on them calling them the “velvet mafia.” They are going to do a gay purge and say that they aided and abetted Foley.

    Enough with the rumor mongering but that’s what’s going around FWIW.

  47. Mad Dog says:

    John,

    Thanks for the link… but … if you check out that blog and the link… er … Foley’s part of the blog.

    Not blaming you, John, but that looks like a spin until you win kind of a place.

    I bet it has as much credibility as I do.

  48. pvsys says:

    heroV:

    No, I do NOT think it is OK. What Folley did was wrong and I’m glad he resigned. (My earlier question was NOT to protect Folley… but I do think that we had about a 24 hour period there where, suddenly, there was no “for sure” story where under-18-year-olds were involved and I was seeking clairification on that… which I got. Thanks John!)

    Also, I don’t think that knowledge by pages working for Republicans or even knowledge by a tiny handful (if that!) of aids working for Republicans equals Republican leaders, particularly elected Reps, knowing.

    Think of it this way… a 16-year old kid working as a “runner” at a law firm might easily catch wind of some gossip about an affair that is going on at a large law firm… but does that really mean that “partners” principles in the firm are aware of the situations… a very big NOT necessarily.

    Regarding democrats knowing in advance… I don’t know for sure. But there is some evidence that an organization called C.R.E.W. is behind this and passed this info to ABC.

    SEE:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5907

    And C.R.E.W.’s executive Director has deep ties with House Democrat leaders.

    DETAILS HERE:
    http://www.citizensforethics.org/about/whoweare.php

    Regarding those 7 conservatives who think losing = wining… I can empathize… and I have much respect for Richard A. Viguerie… but I think their energy is mis-spent. A better solution is to get rid of RINOs in the primary. Also, I think some of this is merely to scare the establishment/country club Republicans into realizing that they can’t take the idological/cultural/fiscal conservative vote for granted… and they are certainly at risk for some of these to stay home… but I disagree. This is a bad strategy, long term and short term.

    Will there be any winners in this mess?

    Still, knowing how far back this went, I’m suspect that many heads would tumble in both parties if we could inject everyone in the House with “truth serium” while under oath.

    But I don’ t think that who knew what necessarily matches up with who was in charge or with the leadership positions in either party. It just makes sense that SOME people had to know.

    –Rob McEwen

  49. John Konop says:

    Mad Dog,

    I got it on this thread from pvsys.

    Mojo,

    You make good points.

    caroline,

    That would be a strange plan if that is true. That would be a tough food fight if true.

  50. John Konop says:

    Rob,

    Both parties protect incumbents that why we have a 9 trillion dollar debt. I was in a debate with Tom Price when party leaders gave him a standing ovation for bringing back pork via the Highway and Energy bill. They did not care we are using are kids money to pay for this. The core reason I became a Republican was after I read a book about Barry Goldwater. I then started watching William F Buckley on PBS.

    You are a smart guy is this what Goldwater wrote about as a Conservative movement? The Foley scandal is symptom for a bigger problem called Washington. It is time to get back to the old play book

  51. pvsys says:

    John,

    You’ve got me there!

    I’d welcome a way to give the Republican leadership a “spanking” for their misplaced priorities. I just wish it could be done without giving the Democrats control. And, unlike those articles you linked to, I fear that too much short term damage would be done to be worth any long term gains. Also, it seems like, economically, we are finally recovering from the energy crisis, the dot-com bust, 9/11, Katrina, etc. The next couple of years look bright and, of course, if the Dems win, they’ll take credit for this. That would really be so awful!

    (Not to mention the possible loss of my tax cuts!)

    –Rob McEwen

  52. John Konop says:

    Mojo,

    If they had it together they would of been way before this scandel! Great point! If Dems take control, the immigration issue will kill them in 2008 if the GOP gets it together.

  53. Mojo says:

    John Konop,

    The GOP does run into a problem, in the long run, with the immigration issue and they have to be careful how they handle it. Every political party that has taken a strict nativist stance has fallen aside into the ashes of history. The Latino population is growing and it will continue to grow, soon becoming the largest minority in the nation. Their strict adherence to Catholicism makes them ideal Republicans with certain socially conservative beliefs, but if it is seen that the GOP is anti-immigration, and it is spun to appear as anti-Latino as well (comments by John Gibson of the need for white Americans to reproduce more or become a minority to Latinos do not help) then Latinos will become a new voting bloc for Democrats and that will destroy the GOP once and for all. Bill Kristol has a good point on how the GOP should handle this and be careful of appearing anti-immigration. I hate to say it but Bush was, originally, right on this issue.

  54. ugavi says:

    No one is anti-immigration. People are anti ILLEGAL immigration, the key word is ILLEGAL. Which people leave off when they are discussing this issue.

  55. Mojo says:

    ugavi,

    I didn’t say anyone is anti-immigration, I said that the GOP is in danger of being “seen” as anti-immigration.

  56. John Konop says:

    Mojo,

    The problem is even liberal open boarder economist Krugman is back peddling, because wages for blue colar wokers is down 8%. Someone will pay the price in the polls. BTW around 40% of American latinos see the same problem.

  57. Dorabill says:

    This thing (the Foley thing) looks less and less like a political brush fire and more like one of those underground coal mine fires that they can’t put out.

  58. JasonW says:

    What Rep. Foley did was wrong, there’s no doubt about it. BUT is it criminal? NO. The “victim” (I hate to call him that) was above the age of consent, no sex ever occured, and apparently he liked it enough to continue talking to the congressman after the first “come-ons.” The difference between and the Bill Clinton scandal is not so much the age of the victims or that it was a gay tryst, it’s that Bill Clinton lied underoath and wouldn’t resign, where as Foley admitted it, and resigned. I have to hand it to Foley for handling his F-up with the last bit of remaining dignity that he had.

  59. Mojo says:

    JasonW,

    What age of consent applies? Where are the boys from, b/c different states have different ages of consent? Also, there are different ages of consent for homosexual relationships as opposed to heterosexual, in many states there are no homosexual ages of consent as it is illegal for male/male sex with a minor.

    Also, Foley had no dignity. If he had had dignity he never would have committed the acts, or he would have outed himself. He did not do anything dignified until someone else outed his activities.

  60. JasonW says:

    The average age of consent in the United States is between 14 and 16. The states the students resided in at the time Age of consent used to be able to differentiate between hetrosexual and homosexual issues, but as far as I know, all states have changed that (including Georgia) as it is discriminatory and unconstitutional.

    I disagree with your ” no dignity” comment. I think that he did have SOME dignity, or he wouldn’t have resigned, he would have lied his way through it, and he could have taken his shot at re-election.

  61. millie says:

    Doesn’t it say something about us as a country that this scandal is more important than killing the Constitution, spending us into dangerous days (remember when WE backed Britain, Israel and France down over the Suez Canal issue in the fifties. The pound crashed. Guess what is waiting for us from our creditors if we don’t start being fiscally responsible? It’s a national security issue, folks.), allowing private Chinese companies to monopolize port security and management all over the hemisphere and in our country, surreptiously building NAFTA highways through Mexico, the US, and into Canada and attempting to form a North American union without congressional input. Yes, Al Queda is important. But we cannot keep fooling ourselves that we are defending this country. We have overreacted in the Middle East and dropped our drawers here at home.

Comments are closed.