Foleygate

The big news this week is the fall-out surrounding questionable e-mails sent by former Florida representative Mark Foley (R), and a series of salacious IMs he conducted with under-age boys, all of whom were former Congressional Pages. Depending on the poll or commentator, this issue is either very important to voters, or ranks well below the growing mire in Iraq.

There's no question that Rep. Foley crossed a moral line, if not a legal one. There's every possibility that he broke a law against on-line predators that he helped move through the House. At the very least, his communication was inappropriate because of the age of the boys (around 16), and because – even after the young men had left the Congressional page program – he had a position of authority over them.

All this is pretty clear, and "icky" – as the former page who broke the initial e-mail put it.

What is more disturbing is the fact that the Republican leadership knew about these inappropriate communications as recently as last year, and possibly as far back as 2001.

In the business setting, this sort of inappropriate activity would be classed as a form of sexual harassment. Once the harassment had been reported, the accused would be cautioned to avoid contact with the person(s) making the accusation. If the accused did not break off contact with those person(s), or acted in a similar fashion with others, the accused would be fired.

Based on the press statements coming from the House Republican leadership to date, none of this happened. Not even a warning. Certainly no request to resign, until the most benign ("overly friendly") e-mail had been published last Friday by ABC News.

All of which suggests, to my mind, a cover-up. The House Repugnant leadership was more interested in preserving its power than in protecting these young men.

I think an analogy may be drawn to Iraq. The majority of the service people are young men, many as young as 18 or 19. The planning for this invasion was unrealistic and poor from the beginning. The budget was under funded, and funding in many significant areas (especially health care) has been slashed. The responsibility for much of this may be laid at the feet of Secy. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Not a single member of the Repugnant leadership, from either house, has called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. The argument has been they are supporting the leadership of the Commander in Chief during wartime. What they are doing is countenancing incompetence that is as morally repugnant as Rep. Foley's e-mails.

Bottom line: if the Republicans cannot protect the "Hallowed Halls" of Congress, why should we trust them to protect the U.S. for one more day?