Surprise! It's October.

It's not altogether surprising that the young month of October has already proven so surprise-heavy on the political front.  'Tis the season to sway electoral fortunes.

Bob Woodward's new condemnation of the prosecution of the War on Terror is one notable example of a savvily-timed salvo.  The new month was also ushered in by the sick details of former Congressman Mark Foley's (R-FL) abusive perversions toward teenage subordinates.

I'm normally a great skeptic when it comes to "questioning the timing" of news releases.  If we capture Osama a week before the election, I'm sure some on the left will declare we've had him in a cage for months, and I'll pull at least one ocular muscle rolling my eyes.  Likewise, any story that's true (not "fake but accurate" but "accurate accurate") doesn't become any less true, just because its dissemination may be timed according to ulterior purposes.

Thus if there's a good old-fashioned media-hunt to be taken up here, let's offer the prebuttal that deliberately partisan, agenda-driven reporting on this story doesn't make it less true or less gross, nor does it mitigate Foley's actions.  But it could make for a good opportunity to shine a light on the deliberately partisan, agenda-driven nature of those doing the reporting.

--- End Prebuttal ---

With that in mind, this blog has learned from a source on Capitol Hill that he was told directly by reporters from ABC News, The Washington Post, and The St. Petersburg Times that these three news outlets have known about the Foley story since last year.  [Scroll for important updates]

Since any reporter would know this story was meaningful enough to compel the appropriate ouster of a sitting member of Congress, I'm hard pressed to think of a valid reason to sit on it.  Not only is the news value undeniable, but the potentially devastating effects of holding it back were easily forseeable.  How many more pages were abused by Foley while the media bided its time?

It's also been alleged that Speaker Hastert and/or other Republican House leaders knew about the story some months ago, but Hastert contends that the only messages made aware to him (while "overly friendly") were not of the explicit sexual nature of the conversations reported on this week.

Details about who knew what when will likely continue to take shape, but anyone who was aware of the true nature of what Foley was doing and chose to hold it back for political purposes needs to take a good, hard look in the mirror.

Update:  Some points of clarification starting to fill in, courtesy of a Hotline timeline.

Update:  Call off the hunt (the media hunt anyway).  *Shoves hands in pockets and kicks at some dust*  I'm told the original contentions have faded away.  But I renew the assertion that anyone (whether elected official, journalist, or other) sat on the story for political gain, knowing the depths of ongoing depravity involved, they'll rightfully encounter an unforgiving public when it comes to light.

Update:  Hot Air's got footage of Tony Snow commenting on his own comments given earlier today on the whole sordid affair.