You think he did that? Didn’t say that, but you think he thought that, because of…what, exactly? You keep offering the same conjecture as though repeating it will make it solid.
I have evidence, I have quotes, cited. He denied the problem even existed. Which is demonstrably untrue. So why did he say the problem didn’t exist, if his real motivation was some form of political idealism? If his motives were blameless, why hide them?
I have facts and evidence, you have only this conjecture. By your own admission, there is not a scrap of evidence that your conjecture has any connection with fact.
Unless you do have something? Some fact you have neglected to share with us?
Why, of course! The poor innocent virgin, flying off to the Pacific in his communion dress. Never saw, nor heard, of any of those reports. Nobody ever mentioned them to him, he didn’t read about them in the papers, didn’t hear of it on Fox. He felt he could rely on the word of the esteemed Mr Tan and his dearest, closest friend, Mr Abramoff. Men of sterling character and spotless records. Well, Mr Tan had a teensy little problem before…
You gotta be kidding. Are you really reduced to this? “Well, in order to prove he is scum, you must first prove he is not an utterly naive idiot.” Is there anything in Mr DeLays history that suggests to you such pure innocence and naiveté?
Didn’t say he never heard the reports. Said he didn’t believe them:
That was in 1997.
Now, what evidence do you contend he should have believed? According to you, it was outrageous that he didn’t believe the reports of abuse. So what evidence should have convinced him?
So it is. Excellent call, counselor. I encourage all present Dopers to check that link and read it, about how the socialist Mr Miller, the Labor Department and the Catholic Church all told such outrageous lies about the good people of the Mariannas.
And only that paragon of justice, Mr DeLay, saw through their wretched socialistic scheme. It was just him, right? Nobody else?
Okay, let’s stipulate that you’re right: making it a federal crime would be the best solution to the problem. Further stipulate that people can disagree about the immigration argument I offered and not be scum. You’re probably right on both counts.
But that’s not what DeLay did. He prevented the only solution on the table from moving forward, without offering another solution.
If he’d done what you suggested–if he’d instead introduced a bill to make rape a federal crime in the territory–then I wouldn’t consider his actions scummy. But he didn’t.
To use your analogy, he’s the dude that came along, saw the kid getting ready to throw the starfish back in the water, and snatched it from the kid’s arms and threw it back on the beach. Dude just came back from an all-expenses-paid trip courtesy of an oyster farmer. Plus the starfish is a woman who’s been raped.
Thats an interesting answer, but, as is so common with you, its an answer to a question I didn’t ask. I didn’t ask what were the procedural lines of authority within the House of Representatives. In fact, I didn’t mention it at all.
But it appears that you have finally settled upon a position, which is an encouraging development. So, Mr DeLay was not entirely ignorant of these reports, but considered them to be a pack of lies.
Hmmm. Anybody else, by any chance, reach this conclusion? It would be helpful to your case, would it not, if some other authoritative source might support him? Other than Jack Abramoff, of course.
Let me ask you point blank: do you agree? Do you find his statements plausible?
"I saw it for what it was: The left wanting to impose federal bureaucracy on the economy of the Marianas Islands and shut down what was going on there. They will say and do anything.”
I find that the authors created a conspiracy where none existed. They took DeLay’s statements from 1997 and the congressmen’s findings from 1999 and conflated them. Which is why I asked you to SPECIFICALLY lay out what evidence DeLay should have relied upon in 1997 to change his mind.
It’s as though you said, “Smith denied the fact that mankind had reached the moon, despite mountains of film and photographic evidence of Neil Armstrong’s historic walk.”
And I replied, “Yes, but Smith made those statements in 1967, and Neil’s walk happened in 1969.”
I find DeLay’s statements plausible WHEN HE MADE THEM, yes.
Then, I’m sure you see, that this raises more questions than it answers, the first being “why?”. DeLay reveals a conspiracy of breathtaking scope, involving the Catholic Church, Mr. Miller, and any number of co-conspirators. And what evidence does he offer? His own authority, based upon an investigation he claims to have conducted. Does he offer affidavits? Does he name his witnesses? The “plaintiffs” do, their names are included in the same article.
Did he call for further investigation into these scurrilous assaults on the reputation of the “good people of the Mariannas”? Did he make a public display of the evidence? Did the Catholic Church conduct any sort of internal investigation, to ascertain their responsibility for slandering these good people?
So, on the one hand, you have Congressional reports, the Labor Department findings, and what appears to be the unanimous opinion of the Senate that, indeed, there was a problem to be solved, whatever you may think of their approach to solving it.
On the other hand, you have the sterling character and spotless reputation for candor of Mr. DeLay. You see the problem, I am sure.
It’s good to see you taking the position that the Catholic Church would not engage in any criminal conspiracy.
But in this case, it’s not relevant.
The Catholic Church wasn’t involved one way or the other. Neither was Mr. Miller.
You see, as I mentioned before, DeLay’s visit to the isalnd and his comments were in 1997.
From your link:
So how could DeLay have relied on Miller’s investigation? Did DeLay have a time machine? Were you expecting him to hop into the Delorean and get it going past 88 miles per hour, generate 1.21 gigawatts of electricty, and jump forward a year or so?
I’m going to ask one more time:
SPECIFICALLY, on what evidence should DeLay have relied in 1997?
Don’t answer with any shit that happened after 1997, unless you also are showing how Dr. Emmet “Doc” Brown enters the picture.
Don’t dodge the question.
SPECIFICALLY, on what evidence should DeLay have relied in 1997?
Did he recant, then? Given the intervening events, did he change his story substantially? If he said essentially the same thing before and after, what then could your point be?
George Miller made his trip in 1998. Presumably, this quote from Mr DeLay is from some later date:
Now, there is a difference, but not one, I think, you can take much comfort in. In the later quote, Mr. DeLay says that this conspiracy was bent on
So, in the latter case, DeLay does not say that the intention was to “slander the good people of the Mariannas” but to "impose federal bureaucracy ". Is there some glaring contradiction there that should cause me to reel away in consternation? Point of fact, he tiptoes right up to the line of calling Mr Miller a liar: “these people will say and do anything”.
Now, if Mr DeLay had not known any such facts in 1997, and changed his opinion when new facts came to light, facts that had somehow evaded him before, well, ok, then, live and learn. But he didn’t, did he?
In either case, did he offer any evidence to support his claims? Other than his own sterling character and spotless reputation? Is there any substantial difference in his position before a given date, and after?