Should Hasert Resign?

I'm perplexed by the Washington Times' call for Denny Hasert to resign as Speaker of the House. The meat of their argument:

Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. [emphasis mine]

If the initial emails weren't enough to raise even the hackles of liberal newspapers such as the St. Petersburg Times or the Miami Herald, they were supposed to be "warning enough" for Denny Hasert to launch an investigation? The Washington Times dismisses the differences between the emails and the IMs as "irrelevant"? If Rep. Hasert launched an investigation into every such matter concerning questionable behavior of a fellow Representative, the House would be one big non-stop investigation of itself.

So far, I've seen nothing that indicates the House Leadership knew anything more than the contents of the original email. Could you imagine the uproar from liberals if they had launched such an investigation of Rep. Foley, long known inside the beltway as a homosexual, based soley on such ambiguous emails. Liberal would have been screaming "homophobia" at the top of their lungs. They would have accused Hasert of painting all homosexuals as pedophiles.

With everything we now know, I not only hope that Denny Hasert doesn't resign, but I hope he digs his heels in and fights back. There have been some pretty ugly accusations tossed in his direction, including covering for a known pedophile. That is not something you should take lying down Mr. Speaker.

UPDATE: Mark Levin at The Corner makes some good points along the same lines that I believe I'm following here. Of course he's much clearer and better spoken on the matter than I, but then again I'm only about half as smart as he is. Also notice the mature discourse displayed by conservatives on this matter in contrast to the... ah, you know.

UPDATE II: Investor's Business Daily appears to be the first to call into question the timing of Foleygate and questions about what did "Democrats know, and when did they know it?" As the story continues to unfold, it should begin to become clear that the Democrats will have quite a bit to answer for as well. This is politics at it's dirtiest and the only way for the Republicans to fight back is, sadly enough, to get down and dirty with 'em.