I suppose there are a number of questions here. What was the content of the messages? What did Kolbe -- an openly gay Republican -- do about them? Who has been holding on to these messages since that time? What are the motives for releasing them now? And why is the Washington Post showing more deference to their secrets than to those involving America's nationl security?

A Republican congressman knew of disgraced former representative Mark Foley's inappropriate Internet exchanges as far back as 2000 and personally confronted Foley about his communications.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) confirmed yesterday that a former page showed the congressman Internet messages that had made the youth feel uncomfortable with the direction Foley (R-Fla.) was taking their e-mail relationship. Last week, when the Foley matter erupted, a Kolbe staff member suggested to the former page that he take the matter to the clerk of the House, Karen Haas, said Kolbe's press secretary, Korenna Cline.

Now this takes the date at which someone knew about the Foley problem back five years earlier -- but there is a problem. The Washington Post won't tell us what is in the messages in question.

A source with direct knowledge of Kolbe's involvement said the messages shared with Kolbe were sexually explicit, and he read the contents to The Washington Post under the condition that they not be reprinted. But Cline denied the source's characterization, saying only that the messages had made the former page feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, she said, "corrective action" was taken. Cline said she has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe's confrontation with Foley.

In other words, the Washington Post knows what was in the messages, but we are expected to take it on faith that there is something improper about them. While the paper is prepared to spill national security secrets on the front page, it will hold back information needed for the American people to decide for themselves whether Kolbes actions were responsible or gross malfeasance. Neither will the Washington post share the source of their information with us, to permit us to assessits credibility -- or determine when the source knew of the emails and why that source did not come forward earlier. Also undisclosed is whether these messages have been shared with the House Leadership so that they can be investigated by the Ethics Committee -- or the authorities for criminal investigation.

Indeed, there are more questions than answers in this story -- and at least some of them need to be answered by the Washington Post.

Posted by: Greg at 10:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.