Just what are you implying Washington Post?

There are two items contained within the Washington Post's story this morning about Jim Kolbe's (R-Az) revelation that he was aware and took steps to confront Mark Foley (R-Pants) about inappropriate e-mails to pages back in 2000.

That moves the scandal back many years and makes the failure to act, and perhaps cover up, even more shocking.

However, there is also a second aspect to the article that troubles me. First, Kolbe to his credit has been openly gay for years. Which makes this portion of the article seem gratuitous:

Kolbe once invited four former pages to make use of his Washington home while he was out of town, according to an instant message between Foley and another former page, Jordan Edmund, in January 2002. The pages planned to attend a first-year reunion of their page class. But because of a snowstorm, they did not take Kolbe up on his offer, according to one of the four pages.

Cline said one of the youths invited was a former page of Kolbe's. Because the congressman frequently travels on weekends, either to his Arizona ranch or abroad, the house is often available to friends, constituents, staffers and former staff members, such as a former page, she said.

Kolbe, the only openly gay Republican in Congress, is retiring at the end of the year.

So?

What the fuck are you trying to imply WaPo (Jonathan Weisman)? There seems no evidence of anything inappropriate in this, yet it seems to be in the article to imply that there somehow -- with Kolbe not there -- he is somehow doing something improper. I don't want to see the GOP hold Congress, but I'd also rather see the media stick to relevant factual information.