Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) Saw Sexually Explicit Foley Messages in 2000

It seems that Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) saw sexually explicit Foley messages in 2000.

The only question left at this point is this. Are there any Republicans in the House who were NOT aware that Foley was preying on young Republican pages entrusted in their care?

Another 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.

The revelation pushes back by at least five years the date when a member of Congress has acknowledged learning of Foley’s questionable behavior. A timeline issued by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) suggested that the first lawmakers to know, Rep. John M. Shimkus (R-Ill.), the chairman of the House Page Board, and Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-La.), became aware of “over-friendly” e-mails only last fall. It also expands the universe of players in the drama beyond members, either in leadership or on the page board.

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 condition that they are not 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 still has not yet determined whether that action went beyond Kolbe’s confrontation with Foley.

In interviews with The Post last week, multiple pages identified Kolbe as a close friend and personal confidante, who was one of the only members of Congress to take any interest in them. A former page himself, Kolbe offered to mentor pages and kept in touch with some of them after they left the program, according to the interviews.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) Saw Sexually Explicit Foley Messages in 2000

  1. Buzz says:

    Unfortunately, the Republicans will attempt to turn attention away from this scandal by again bashing the gay community. They will try to equate pedophiles with gays, as they always do. They fail to realize that gays and lesbians alike are also appaled by the inappropriate emails of Representative Folley. Just because a person is gay does not mean that they are without a sense of moral decency. Gays, for too long, have been stereotyped as the dregs of society, who are out there preying on innocent children. The fact of the matter is that all studies have shown that the majority of sex crimes involving children are committed by hetrosexuals.
    This same faulty logic is used to keep gays out of the military. President Clinton’s policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” has failed miserably. It is used as a vechicle to discriminate against gays simply because of who they are.
    The Catholic Church’s abuse scandals have also been used by Republicans as another opportunity to bash gays. Since the community at large vilifies gays, some with a genuine religious calling seek refuge in the priesthood thinking they will be able to stop the constant question of, “why aren’t you married yet?” A miniority of religiously dedicated priest’s, however, find out, too late, that they cannot suppress their “dispied” sexual orientation and unfortunately succumb by getting sexually involved with a minor. If the Catholic church would reform their unrealistic policy of celibacy and permit priests to marry women, it would both increase the dwindling number of priests and decrease it’s sanctuary for gay’s who are fearful to come out of the closet.
    These are just some examples of how the self-rightious Republican “born agains” constantly attempt to utilize gay bashing as a means to scapegoat bad morals from society at large (including themselves) to a miniority group which still remains politically correct to hate.

  2. Ginny Cotts says:


    I agree with your points. It gets beyond stupid when you look at the whole history of homosexuality, religion and politics. Nowhere more so than the US. Britain may have started it, but they have grown out of the guilt trip far more than we have thanks to the GOP embracing the fundies.

    The celibacy policy and falling numbers of priests is going to be a bigger issue as more generations grow up without the sexuality guilt that even the boomers have fought – albeit more openly.

    Gay bashing is the clearest example of what excessive religous indoctrination can do to your critical thinking skills – the ‘think inside the box’ mentality. The arguments fail in facts, logic and simple human decency, not to mention what many of us see as the intent of the guy who stopped a crowd from stoning a woman accused of adultery.

    On the human decency aspect, I find it interesting how smaller groups such as the Native Americans actually recognized GBLT individuals as having special gifts and made places for them within their cultures. When a large percent of the group knows the individual as a child, sibling, cousin or friend. it becomes impossible to ostracize them. They certainly didn’t cause those cultures to fail – Christians did.

    This issue and the WOT have increased my respect for the founding fathers who so wisely precluded ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ in the Constitution. I used to think that was to protect us from people who were psychologically unstable. Now I realise that even someone who doesn’t believe in the death penalty could wish that we could revive stoning for the truly evil among us.

    I guess I will stick to hurling words.

  3. Ginny Cotts says:

    Expanding on the punishment concept. Half of my objection to the death penalty involves the reality that other human beings will have to actually DO it. The people involved in those executions are nowhere near as stable psychologically as the character Tom Hanks portrayed in The Green Mile. I saw Coyote on a Fence several years ago. Excellent play on the people involved: the death row inmates, their guards etc.

    My challenge has always been that every member of a jury who votes to convict on a death penalty crime should have to participate. Could they do it?

    We know full well what killing another human does to soldiers, police officers and anyone who does so in self defense or by accident. Regardless of how few the numbers are, it is wrong. There have been some anecdotal reports of people who participated and then realised what it had done to them. I am also wondering what happened to the study on the Texas ‘Tie Down’ team. Probably suppressed.

    So the question I ask myself is ‘Could you throw the first stone.’

    The answer scares me. Even though I have always been able to control my emotions and refused to act on anything inappropriate, the anger is becoming overwhelming some times. I think because even serial killers rarely come close to destroying as many lives as these cruel people do. That’s including all the family, friends etc of the victims.

    I see the difference in violence versus words as significant. If anything, the violent are stopped sooner, before they can do more damage. They are also acting on very strong emotions- probably formed in childhood- that they never learned to process or control, creating psychological and emotional damage. When people use non-violent means to indirectly or outright kill other humans, what does that do to our societies and cultures? Why are humans able to kill one (or more) of their own with calculated intention?

    Meanwhile, these thoughtless, arrogant people affect millions of lives- including those of us who are thrown into anger and defending the innocent. For me, it is taking my spare time and energy away from my goals and values.
    Creativity is channeled into advocacy and activism.

    For one of my best friends, it has taken his entire career.
    Bob is a wonderful person and I rarely think of him without wondering what he would have accomplished had he not followed his conscience and limited his practice to appeals for death row inmates. Like the scientists who spend their careers devising weapons.

    We have come a long way from the caves, in spite of ourselves.