Simple. They knew he was in the closet and that they could not rely on him to help pass their agenda with help from the DNC. So they waited until a time when it would help them most, midterm elections, without concern for the young pages being victimized.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/Articles/activist%20held%20info%20about%20Foley.html
2006-10-04 04:37:04 · 11 answers · asked by El Pistolero Negra 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree, they knew about Foley for a long time, and only released the information when it was to their political advantage.
That is child endangerment. Allowing a sexual preditor to continue unchecked...shameful.
2006-10-04 04:41:34 · answer #1 · answered by Leah 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course they knew. The only reason they maintained a cover up for so long was because he could probably blow the lid on countless other polititians who (ahem) enjoy the same 'hobbies' as him. Same reason Harvey-Oswald was shot dead. He had too much info that would've opened a big-@ss can of worms involving way too many important people. Now we'll just have to see what happens to Foley. Oh, and don't forget the smoke screen effect this has had. While the nation was watching this whole scandal, a certain fascist Military Commissions Act was passed under our noses. Sleight of hand folks, sleight of hand!
2006-10-04 04:51:16 · answer #2 · answered by Angel 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
often times, I do, because there are some distinctly loopy issues pronounced contained in the bible, yet you do not see them assisting all of those regulations, do you? Like in Leviticus: "do not placed on outfits made from better than one fabrics" 19:19 "all of us who curseth his parent must be killed" 20:9 "those who've flat noses, or is blind or lame, can't bypass to an altar of God" 21:17-18 non secular fanaticism creates monsters and there can't be a soul on the earth who has followed their faith with each fiber of their being. My perfect chum is gay, I help gay rights 100 %. each man or woman must have an same rights.
2016-11-26 02:23:43 · answer #3 · answered by gerdsen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not true. Despite the fact that he opposed their political agenda, they passed on outing him since they believe it should be an individual choice when and whether to come out of the closet. They didn't wait to out him at the most opportune moment (that would be in LATE October, not early!), he was outed by someone else.
2006-10-04 04:46:34 · answer #4 · answered by kreevich 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Foley is a Republican. He was reported to Republicans. Republicans did whatever they did about it.
"Gays in the Democratic National Committe" are not Republicans. Shoving responsibility for this sleaze onto Democrats with such a flimsy tissue of "connection" is the usual specious, mendacious, and meretricious blame-evasion typical of conservative apologists.
2006-10-04 04:50:30 · answer #5 · answered by sonyack 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You need to stop watching Fox News and think for yourself. To attempt to shift the blame to the DNC on this matter is transparent at best, and downright cowardly at worst. Show some accountability.
2006-10-05 02:14:44 · answer #6 · answered by spire2000 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Apparently everyone on the hill knew he was gay.
And I believe I read today he supported a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and supported a ban on gays being allowed to adopt.
2006-10-04 04:47:25 · answer #7 · answered by lethallolita 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
From the article you links to:
"Rogers said he posted comments about Foley on the DCCC website, but they were deleted"
So much for close ties.
Tell me again what the republican leadership did about Foley prior to last Thursday.
2006-10-04 04:45:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
you people are shameful! this is about a horrible man & the republican leadership knew about this for over a year. you're always blaming others! can't you just for once say, damn, our side really f'd up on this one? i guess not...
oh, and i'm not a democrat either.
2006-10-04 04:48:50 · answer #9 · answered by jack spicer 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No morals...no ethics...selfish, uncaring, power hungry people...
2006-10-04 04:58:27 · answer #10 · answered by just me 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋