J.C. WATTS...POSTER BOY!

[aoxamaxoa]

This is real hard to buy into.

Respecting the rights of the parents...

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/10/respecting-rights-of-parents.html

[snopes]

It is real hard to buy into. The article says J.C. Watts said that, but did he really? And in what context? It doesn't even bother to quote him directly, with the exception of "the rights of the parents" part.

Otherwise, the blog merely "says" Watts made such a statement, which I find suspicious. I'd like to look at the entire content of J.C.'s interview on CNN before I'd believe this.

[snopes]

Now it makes snse. I went to the HOME PAGE of the blog and see that it's nothing more than a biased, left leaning website.

Not that it couldn't be true, but the source makes me think hmmmm..

[aoxamaxoa]

Kill the messenger?

[snopes]

Nope. Not kill the messenger Aox. It's just that the source is a little suspect. The website is entirely a left leaning website, which doesn't make it wrong, but does make me suspicious being that J.C. Watts is a voice for the "other side."

Again, I refer to the article. It doesn't quote Watts verbatim, it states that he "says" these things but doesn't give the entire context. The one small part of the article that quotes him directly is where it states he says "the rights of the parents."

I could make up any number of sentences with "the rights of the parents," included and then someone could massage my intent however they wanted and then "say" that I told them any number of things. All I ask is to review the transcript of Mr. Watts interview. Is that too much to ask?

One more thing. If the quote is accurate, then Watts is dead wrong. Do you have a transcript of the CNN interview or can you provide a link? I'm asking this sincerely.

[rwarn17588]

It wasn't hard to find. This is off the transcript from "The Situation Room."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0610/03/sitroom.01.html

PRESS: If it was not a cover-up, I don't know what it was. They knew about this. Let me tell you something. Here is Dennis Hastert who is former teacher, who is a former coach. It should have sent red flags all over the place for a guy who knows 16 year olds.

We're not talking politics here, we're talking pedophilia. That's what we're talking about. And the fact that he saw this, saw evidence of it, asking for a photograph and remember something else. The page himself when he sent these to Congressman Rodney Alexander's staff he described them as "sick, sick, sick, sick."

That should have told Denny Hastert that this was more than just overly friendly e-mail.

WATTS: But also the parents ...

PRESS: They did nothing. That was the cover-up.

WATTS: It's my understanding as well that the parents didn't want to take it any further.

PRESS: No excuse.

WATTS: No, John, but I'm saying we have to respect their rights as well.

KING: I don't want to interrupt anyone in mid sentence because it's a very serious issue.

WATTS: That's right. It is.

KING: Both the politics of it and the personal investigation of it. We'll discuss more of this in the days and weeks ahead. We're out of time here for today. J.C. Watts, Bill Press, thank you very much.

<end clip>

There's more Watts comments, but that's the gist of it in the context in which it's being discussed.

I see nothing wrong with the accuracy of what the blog says, which is trying to kick-start discussion on the issue -- namely, would the "wishes of the parents" to keep this quiet enable to a lawbreaker or pervert to do other vile deeds to other pages? I think it's a legitimate concern.

And I'd forgotten that Hastert's a former teacher. That makes him look even worse in this situation, IMO. He certainly dealt with lots of young people in his former career; he certainly should have known better.

[snopes]

Thanks for the link Rwarn. I'll read..

[iplaw]

Things are buzzing today again with this story, and according to stories breaking, the page was apparently 18 at the time.  The page's name was accidently released yesterday by ABC and some snooping by a local Oklahoman brought the identity of the "victim" to light.

This may have been a completly bogus story in the first place.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

If it was true that he was 18 then all we have is Monica Part Deux and massive Dem melt down.

[snopes]

I read much of the article about the Watts exchange, and I do have to say that it appears (at first glance) that Watts is doing damage control, which is "code" for towing the party line. I don't agree with that one bit. I'll re-assert my position on this; I think there are alot of people that knew what was going on, and those that did need to get the boot. Regardless of whether the parents wanted to "cover it up" or not there should be no other side to this than it is WRONG and anyone who tries to play that word game should be ashamed (Watts included).

[iplaw]

ACCORDING TO THE LATEST NEWS HE WAS 18

This may explain why so many other news outfits passed on the story...it was a non-story to begin with.

[snopes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Things are buzzing today again with this story, and according to stories breaking, the page was apparently 18 at the time.  The page's name was accidently released yesterday by ABC and some snooping by a local Oklahoman brought the identity of the "victim" to light.

This may have been a completly bogus story in the first place.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

If it was true that he was 18 then all we have is Monica Part Deux and massive Dem melt down.

Wow, the never-ending story. If this is true, there has been so much spin on this story it is unreal. It's hard to know what to believe anymore.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by snopes

I read much of the article about the Watts exchange, and I do have to say that it appears (at first glance) that Watts is doing damage control, which is "code" for towing the party line. I don't agree with that one bit. I'll re-assert my position on this; I think there are alot of people that knew what was going on, and those that did need to get the boot. Regardless of whether the parents wanted to "cover it up" or not there should be no other side to this than it is WRONG and anyone who tries to play that word game should be ashamed (Watts included).

What is Watts doing commenting on it anyway?  Most of the timeline in the Foley issue happened after Watts left Congress at the end of 2002.

[iplaw]

ABC has it's own RatherGate...this may end very poorly for the Dems especially if a Dem is found to have facilitated the deal between ABC and the Page.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Things are buzzing today again with this story, and according to stories breaking, the page was apparently 18 at the time.  The page's name was accidently released yesterday by ABC and some snooping by a local Oklahoman brought the identity of the "victim" to light.

This may have been a completly bogus story in the first place.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashmfa.htm

If it was true that he was 18 then all we have is Monica Part Deux and massive Dem melt down.

Let's see, where have we seen poor investigation in the media before...hmmmm, Dan Rather in 2004?

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

ABC has it's own RatherGate...this may end very poorly for the Dems especially if a Dem is found to have facilitated the deal between ABC and the Page.

"IF"?  How about "WHEN"?