If someone had the IM's for 3 years as Hastert keeps claiming

[Mike Daniels]

why didn't they use them during the 2004 election?

Without a doubt, the IM's can't be dismissed as "creepy but harmless" like the initial e-mail has been portrayed at times by the Repubs.

With something this explosive, if a Dem had possession of the IM's in 2003 why wouldn't they have been used in an election when they could have possibly helped get Bush out of office in addition to flipping control of Congress.

I'd like to hear Hastert give a reply to that.

It's obvious they are in panic mode because they are just tossing out anything hoping it will stick.

[ccpup]

1. great question.

perhaps one of our Olberman people will pick up on it and ask it tonight on-air? :-)

[pnwmom]

2. I understand the pages had them on their computers.

And when ABC came out with the story about the emails on its blog, pages were sending records of i.m.'s within hours.

I bet Foley didn't know that i.m.ers often keep copies of their i.m.'s

[Mike Daniels]

4. But Hassert is implying that Dems also had possession

of these same IM's over the last 3 years (not just recently).

Obviously, the implication is total BS since 3 years ago would have been 2003 and the time to release them in that case would have been prior to the presidential election.

I'm just saying I'd love for a reporter to bring that little dateline up during a Q&A to see how the Repubs reply to that inquiry.

[pnwmom]

6. He's implying that, but I don't think he has a basis for implying that.

Or at least, none that he or anyone else has shared with us.

There's also the fact that he didn't share the emails with the Democratic member of the Page committee, OR even the Republican woman!

[blogslut]

3. where did you hear that?

From what I understand of the chronology, the IMs were given to ABC after they published the story on the one email with the one page. The other pages sent those IMs to ABC in response to the original story.

Can anyone tell me what year these IMs are from?

[Mike Daniels]

5. Hastert asks the question in his letter to the Justice Depart

Basically, he wants Justice to find out who was in possession of the IM's and also what kept the person from releasing them upon initial discovery.

This has become the one of the new rallying cries for the Repubs who are desperately trying to find a way to spin to back onto the Dems.

[pnwmom]

7. He just wants them to go on a fishing expedition. And he wants

people to be suspicious that the Democrats are all behind this. But there's no evidence that I've seen that the Dems have been sitting on this. It's only the pages who have had the i.m.'s, from what I've heard.

[ddeclue]

8. Why oh why are we Democrats so conniving yet so incompetent?

So...I was listening to the Al Franken show today just before it ended and he had a caller or guest who was making the assertion that the Democrats knew about Foley for 3 YEARS but saved it until NOW to use in the 2006 elections...ergo..Foley did the bad thing but it's still all our fault - in short, when in doubt, always blame the Democrat.

So let me get this straight...we Democrats are to blame for this mess because we were "keeping our powder dry" for THREE YEARS and saving this scandal for NOW, the OFF YEAR election instead of holding it for just ONE YEAR and then using it TWO YEARS AGO during the 2004 PRESIDENTIAL election which was ALSO a Congressional election?



Yeah, ok, that makes a lot of sense to me...(but only in a bizarro WingNut world.. )

Why oh why, if we were saving it for election season, didn't we Democrats have the good sense to use it on a PRESIDENTIAL election rather than wasting it on the OFF-YEAR election?

I'm SURE had the tables been turned the Republicans wouldn't have squandered their cards so foolishly - let's just speak hypothetically for a moment:

Suppose a married 50 something Democratic President had been caught fooling around with a 20 something intern he worked with in the White House.

I'm just speaking hypothetically, mind you...

I'm sure the Republicans would not have been so "incompetent" as we've obviously been by holding it back several years and then using it for instance in the 2002 election....instead of a Presidential election year.

I'm sure they would have used it at the next available election opportunity against us.

(This sounds kind of familiar...but I don't know why..)

Please DU'ers, in your great wisdom and experience, explain this bit of Democratic Party "incompetence" to me.

Why did we "waste" this scandal on an off year Congressional election instead of using it in 2004 during a Presidential election when it could have denied Bush a second term?


:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:
:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:


Doug D.
Orlando, FL