Truth - Badly Beaten and Left to Die

Truth has been taking a severe beating in Washington, DC lately, not that that’s such an unusual occurrence.

Condoleezza Rice can’t get her story straight about a meeting she held with George Tenant, former director of the CIA, on July 10, 2001, two months before 9/11, in which Tenant gave her a direct and specific warning about an impending attack by al-Qaeda. First, she said that she had no recollection of the meeting. Then, she said that she recalled the meeting but that the discussion had no domestic information in it. Then, she said that she recalls that there was domestic information in the discussion but that information was not new. Of course, with that admission she hoists herself on her own petard by suggesting that she knew of a possible attack before July 10.

Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House, can’t get his story straight about what he knew concerning Rep. Mark Foley’s unfortunate penchant for nasty chat with congressional pages and when he knew it. I won’t map the various iterations of that truth-impaired string of stories because the bob and weave employed is quite intricate. Suffice it to say, at the end of the day the speaker blamed everything on ABC News and Bill Clinton. Case closed.

We should impose a new rule on our national leaders: three inconsistent recollections on the same topic in less than a week and you’re outta there.

Speaking of case closed, now the FBI, the agency charged with protecting truth, justice and the American way, has decided that it, too, can spin whatever tale it wants to spin and that we’ll just say, “Okay”.

On July 21, 2006, the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent the FBI copies of some of the emails Foley sent to a male page. The FBI did nothing in response. Well, better said, the FBI did nothing to investigate. Rather, it spun a story about why it did nothing.

The FBI claims that the emails provided by CREW were “heavily redacted” and didn’t contain the name of the page involved or the name of the person to whom the page forward the emails. The FBI also claims that it contacted CREW and asked for more information so that it could follow up but that CREW refused to provide anything further. The FBI apparently thought that CREW could not verify what it sent to the FBI.

CREW has now sent a letter to the Department of Justice attaching exact copies of the emails CREW sent to the FBI on July 21. Both the former page’s name and the person to whom the page forwarded the Foley emails were clearly visible. After sending the emails to the FBI, CREW claims that the only subsequent contact with the FBI was one call from the agent to whom CREW sent the material confirming that the emails were from Foley. CREW said the FBI asked for no other information because the emails revealed the further information the FBI claims it was seeking.

Ala Rice and Hastert, this explanation from the FBI for failing to investigate the Foley matter isn’t their first explanation. The Washington Post reported that an FBI official told the Post that they decided not to investigate because the emails “did not rise to the level of criminal activity.” As CREW is quick to point out, “The FBI cannot have it both ways; either it failed to investigate the Foley emails because they did not rise to a level of criminal activity or because it did not have adequate information to do so. Pick one.”

Yeah, everyone in Washington needs to pick one story out of the grab-bag of possible stories and then stick to it, lest they fall prey to the new rule regarding three inconsistent recollections in less than a week.

Finally, there’s Foley himself. He decided to dump the entire grab-bag of possible stories in rapid-fire succession. When the story broke he immediately determined that he had an alcohol problem and checked into a rehab center. After all, everyone knows that if you’re an alcoholic then everything you do wrong is because you’re the victim of a disease, rather than being the victim of your own weaknesses. This move had the added benefit of keeping Foley away from the press and the FBI, who would surely be investigating this matter.

But, when the public response to that move was just a tad cynical, Foley then had his lawyer reveal that Foley had been molested as a child. After all, everyone knows that children who were molested grow up to become serial molesters, too. But, not wanting to miss the chance to jump on the prevailing bandwagon regarding that problem, Foley explained that the molester was a clergyman. After all, everyone knows that clergymen really mess up young boys.

Finally, Foley blows the door off a closet that had no others walls around it by this time and lets us know that he’s gay. After all, everyone knows that gay men can’t keep their hands off young boys.

Whew; quite a whirlwind to go through in about 48 hours. The only explanation that we didn’t get from Foley was: “I screwed up big time and there’s no excuse for it.” That one will come when he gets interviewed by Barbara Walters, Larry King or Jerry Springer.

The best quip of the week regarding Foley came from comedian Wanda Sykes on the Tonight Show when she complained that, “Foley is giving alcohol a bad name. Alcohol might make you sleep with a fatty or pee on your neighbor’s lawn, but it doesn’t make you a pedophile!” Well said, Wanda.

Now, a new week dawns. While it may be interesting, it won’t be any fun to sit back and see what comes out of the he-said, she-said grab bag next. Watching truth take a beating in the nation’s capitol isn’t anyone’s idea of a good time.