Stephanopoulos failed to challenge Bartlett with reports of Foley cover-up
SUMMARY: After White House counselor Dan Bartlett asserted that the House Republican leadership "appear[s] to be very aggressive" in its investigation of the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley, George Stephanopoulos failed to note reports that GOP leaders in the House knew about the allegations against Foley for months and did little to investigate them.
On the October 1 broadcast of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos asked White House counselor Dan Bartlett whether he agreed with a Washington Post editorial from the same day that called for an independent investigation into the scandal surrounding former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who abruptly resigned from Congress on September 29 amid allegations he sent sexually explicit emails and instant messages to underage former congressional pages. Bartlett responded: "The members of the House of Representatives, the leadership, appear to be very aggressive in pursuing this investigation, and I think that's the best place, is for the leadership to determine the way forward."
Stephanopoulos, however, failed to challenge Bartlett's response by noting that the House Republican leadership reportedly knew about Foley's alleged misconduct for months and did little about it. Indeed, Stephanopoulos was clearly aware of these reports, as the Post editorial cited by Stephanopoulos called for "an outside investigator to do the fact-finding" for that precise reason, and he later asked Rep. John P. Murtha (D-PA) to respond to reports that "five members of the Republican leadership ... were informed of these allegations, in some level, earlier this year."
Also, Time magazine still has yet to do its own reporting on allegations of a Republican cover-up of the Foley scandal. Media Matters for America noted that Time's September 30 online report on Foley made no mention of the significance of the action or inaction of the current House leadership. Time.com, however, did link to an article on CNN.com that addresses the conduct of the House GOP leadership.
From the October 1 broadcast of This Week:
STEPHANOPOULOS: One final quick question on this Mark Foley situation in the House. Number one, was the president aware of any these allegations? Number two, The Washington Post is calling for an independent investigation. Do you think that's appropriate?
BARTLETT: The president was not aware of this. It is a shocking revelation to see this type of allegation. The members of the House of Representatives, the leadership, appear to be very aggressive in pursuing this investigation, and I think that's the best place, is for the leadership to determine the way forward.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Dan Bartlett, thanks very much.
From the October 1 Post editorial, which Stephanopoulos cited:
[I]nitial reports about the institutional response to questions about Mr. Foley's behavior are extremely troubling -- suggestive of a self-protective desire to sweep the problem under the rug rather than to put the well-being of pages paramount.
[...]
Mr. Boehner has punted the controversy to the House ethics committee. But that panel has too often been a black hole of inaction riven by partisan divisions. This isn't a matter of judging whether an individual member complied with ethics rules so much as of assessing the House's institutional response to a problem in its midst. The better course would be to appoint an outside investigator to do the fact-finding. Meanwhile, lawmakers, from the speaker on down, should divulge, fully and quickly, their conduct in this affair.
Later, Stephanopoulos asked Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) to respond to reports that "five members of the Republican leadership, members of Congress, were informed of these allegations, in some level, earlier this year," and asked Murtha whether he agreed with Bartlett's claim that the GOP leadership should conduct the investigation:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn to this issue of Congressman Mark Foley's resignation. It now turns out that five members of the Republican leadership, members of Congress, were informed of these allegations, in some level, earlier this year. Do you think they handled it appropriately?
MURTHA: George, they did not. And you were there in the Congress working for [former Rep. Richard] Gephardt [D-MO] when some of these other things happened. Let me tell you something, that -- we have an obligation to protect these young pages. It's outrageous if they knew any extent at all of what happened. I just can not believe that they allowed this to happen and just told him, "OK, stay away from this kid." I don't know what they saw, but it really makes me nervous that they look like they tried to cover it up. This is what the investigation has to be all about. It has to be a very quick investigation. We have to protect these young people who come up there and try to learn what's going on with the government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: It's being handled by the ethics committee. You just saw Dan Bartlett say he thought that was appropriate. The Washington Post says no, you need an independent investigation. What do you think?
When the feds raided Congressman Jefferson's office and the House's leadership went apeschit, most of the MSM was rather taken aback.
Maybe now we know why Denny and the Do-Nuthins were so nervous about the feds snoopin' around in da House.
Yeah -- it seems when the media tries to "balance" their reportage, the come up with only Jefferson and I-don't-even-remember-his-name-from-the-Ethics-Committee to say, "See, even Democrats have their problematic Reps.
But who can compare to DeLay, to Ney, to Foley, to Allen, to Cunningham, to ________ (fill in the blank, I'm tired)? These were all top guys. This is the most corrupt Congress I can remember. It looks like the Dems will overwhelm like 1994, despite Gingrich's efforts in damage control. Let the hearings beging and the subpoenas issue!!!!!!!!! And oh yes, GW will be under oath, and without his Dick at his side.
{Hey, can I get arrested and jailed as a subversive for saying this sort of stuff?? I wonder...)
Just saying it doesn't make it so. Although I would be the first to believe that the Bubble Prez is out of the loop. There are now so many scandals in the Repubs I can't keep track of them. I only wish I had the time to to a documentary (no, not a docudrame) or a campaign piece listing them all in rapid order. I guess I will have to leave that to Keith O and others.
But this was the first time in a long time that I watched George S., and I must say that he didn't give as many passes as he used to, and certainly not as many as Russert usually does. I guess in fairness, you gotta be quick on your feet to catch these guys. The one thing I always insist upon is "answer the question." But as a lawyer I know that when you, as the respondent, can't truthfully or artfully spin the question, then you answer Question B, which was never asked. Bartlett did that time and time again this AM. Pity so many of them (Russert) let them get away with it. Even that tired old once-famous and brillant F. Lee Bailey TODAY, old and probably drunk, wouldn't stand for the bob and weave that young and vigorous "inquisitors" put up with. At least, perhaps, they are waking up. What is this, the joke in Catch 22 (??) where the Italians just wait to see who's winning and then "switch flags?"
Thanks to MMFA for all the hard work. They can't meaningfully criticize you, since you present the transcripts and the links to support you position. BTW -- has anyone EVER gone back to the Repubs after "seeing the light? I am grateful for David Brock seeing the light and helping America get the facts.
sorry for the formatting -- don't know any better. No apologies for the typos, I do know better.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Been said many times, and will be said many, many more. The thing I'm still trying to figure out is, exactly how did these guys become the party of "values"? Exactly whose "values" in this country do they represent? However, with unchecked power, the Democrats have proven themselves to be susceptible as well. But I will say the things they got caught doing just pale in comparison to these guys. I mean, getting paid for a speaking engagement or promoting your own book is one thing, being bribed for legislation is quite something else. And having a sexual relationship with a male teenage page is totally out there. The GOP leadership has to be just wetting their pants right now. Of course, they are probably just thinking "thank god we own the voting machines"
apparently consist of talking about values, not actually having them.
But this is just too delicious. Another Family Values Putz has been exposed as a phony, monstrous hypocrite. I hope this scandal rips the guts out of the lilly white underbelly of the skulking fascist corporatocracy which is masquerading as the Republican party.
Will this finally shake off the evangelical knuckledraggers that cling to the Republican monster like fleas? I doubt it, but it may, with any luck, encourage a few million of them to stay home out of disgust on election day.
Every time some little thing happens the democrats have to grab onto it, and turn into a some big deal, then politicize it! Sheesh! They're just feeooling the fire of the terrerists some more. Besides, Foley's checked into rehab for his drinking problem, so why don't they just leave him alone.
The Republicans formerly used "the children" as an excuse for every political forray. (eg. what would "the children" think about Monica having oral sex with President Clinton!) In recent years, terrorists have become the basis for their nonsequitors and coverups. This however is a new low: now we're supposed to coverup in a prominent gaybaiting Republicansbecause of "what the terrorists will think". Further, alcoholism does NOT cause pedophilia--this is an insult to alcoholics everywhere.
And you didnt just SERIOUSLY refer to Foley's predatory sexual advances toward a minor as 's0me little thing'
"feeooling the fire"?