Mike, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it weren't in retaliation for the passage of the War Crimes Bill as that was winning the "fear" factor vote for the upcoming election. Or, who knows, maybe a few votes were traded for the go-ahead to make Foley's problem public (him being made the sacrifical pawn)? Maybe, it was made public by the boy or his parents -- does anyone know? Or, maybe it was divine intervention for the the Democratic Party. Then, again, could it be that the powers to be want their telcom (internet) bill passed badly enough to sacrifice one of their own? http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/08/1352255
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/News/09152005_staff_disc.pdf If this bill passes, it means that websites like this one, along with any of our own individual websites, will carry a price tag rendering the federal government a very, very large new revenue stream; not to mention the probable elimination of public broadcasting, as well as requirements by internet service providers to give the national government detailed lists with everybody's names, social security numbers, addresses, phone numbers, and whatever personal information they have on their customers. The games in DC....who knows?
Oh, and by the way, being I had a teenage daughter at the time of "Willy's" scandal....I was appauled (I would have been anyway). Things like this always come back to the question of whether it was legal or not. In Clinton's case, that was the question and the answer was that she was of age, leaving the only question as to whether he abused his presidential powers, including 'lying' under oath (bringing into question what defines as sexual relations and the phrasing of his response -- slick, yes). In the Foley case, however, the boy is not an adult and it is a predatory crime against a minor, the very thing he's spoke against...making him not only a criminal, but a hypocrit and untrustworthy...the very picture Democrats would like to portray (albeit another rendition of the fear factor) about their opposition this upcoming election; e.g., they say one thing, and do the opposite. The two cases cannot be compared as to the legalities; only as to morals.
It doesn't surprise me at all that the Democrats will jump all over this because this man was well up in the party that stood on family values. It's juicy. Nor does it suprise me that Foley and his party are attempting to mitigate the crime by indicating he was molested as a child and was an alcoholic...not to mention, he now claims to be gay. Nor will it surprise me if the Republicans use this example to help get their telecom bill passed, thus, giving the federal government complete control over the internet, and a new stream of revenue for both the government and big business (that bill, in its present state disturbs me greatly because it will put a crunch on small business and the middle class. I will concede we need something to deter and prevent child preditors and to prevent our own children from becoming involved in online situations; but that should be a parental duty more than anything else. Additionally, we all know the internet is monitoried and I do not believe that is the real intent of this bill (even though the promotion will be national security and prevention of crimes against children). And, that's politics.