TPS Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 I read somewhere that Bush's people were trying to prevent the release of this book. Who knows, or who cares, if this **** is true; this is going to be one brutal campaign.... The kitty kelly book Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 And if it's false, it'll be a brutal campaign. Either campaign will pounce on any story that comes along at this point. And personally...I don't think "Kitty Kelley" and "truth" belong in the same sentence. At best, she's very difficult to take seriously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 The real book to keep an eye on is Graham's book: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm He alleges that the FBI and the Bush administration covered up direct connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. Also this seems to be creeping back into the media, as the AP's FOIA lawsuit has turned up new paperwork on the Bush AWOL issue: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84V54IG0.html Ugly, ugly, ugly... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 And if it's false, it'll be a brutal campaign. Either campaign will pounce on any story that comes along at this point. And personally...I don't think "Kitty Kelley" and "truth" belong in the same sentence. At best, she's very difficult to take seriously... 21312[/snapback] Kitty Kelly. The one woman in the world who spends her nights thinking about giving Michael Moore a blowjob. She has about as much credibility as Michael Jackson. This is the best they could do? Kitty Kelly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 The real book to keep an eye on is Graham's book: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm He alleges that the FBI and the Bush administration covered up direct connections between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. Also this seems to be creeping back into the media, as the AP's FOIA lawsuit has turned up new paperwork on the Bush AWOL issue: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040908/D84V54IG0.html Ugly, ugly, ugly... 21353[/snapback] I think the Graham book can definitely present problems. The question about Bush's service in the Guard, I'm sure, was likely released by the Bush administration, much like (and forgive my terrible memory here) certain paperwork or notebooks showed up when we were scrutinizing the Clinton's financial dealings. I think something like that, if done successfully, is akin to "keeping contain." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 The new National Guard stuff is good overall. Plus that story is pretty old. Are there still people out there who could hear this for the first time and really be affected by it? Same with the drug use accusations. That stuff was around in 2000. I remember hearing the President Snowman jokes back then. The Graham book is the worst but it's also the millionth book of its kind - basically the "60 Minutes Bush Bash Book of the Week". BTW, is it normal for sitting Senators to publish books on the work they're doing? Seriously, seems weird.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 ]You ain't kidding it's getting ugly. Read this: link "I went to the Congress last September and proposed fundamental -- supplemental funding, which is money for armor and body parts and ammunition and fuel." What a freaking idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 I heard two little tidbits through the grapevine today.Take them for what it's worth. One from a liberal in DC, and one from a republican in CA. The first is to watch 60 minutes tomorrow night as a national guard person is set to drop a bombshell (personally I havent been following that crap that much and perhaps this is old news, but the person, who is in the loop, didnt intimate that). The second, a little more interesting, is that the Bush camp really doesnt think it can take the undecided independents from Kerry the last two months and have almost given up on them. But they think they can win by getting out the (new) vote in the small towns, which is why he has been going through them recently, even in his strongholds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whynot Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 The new National Guard stuff is good overall. Plus that story is pretty old. Are there still people out there who could hear this for the first time and really be affected by it? Same with the drug use accusations. That stuff was around in 2000. I remember hearing the President Snowman jokes back then. The Graham book is the worst but it's also the millionth book of its kind - basically the "60 Minutes Bush Bash Book of the Week". BTW, is it normal for sitting Senators to publish books on the work they're doing? Seriously, seems weird.... 21392[/snapback] The AWOL issue, and the drug abuse talk isn't about changing votes from W to Kerry; it's about suppressing turn-out. If a bad enough picture can be painted of W in a "moral" light the less motivated the Evangelical vote may be. The reason I think the Graham book has the potential to be bigger, is the word "cover-up". The bulk of the anti-Bush books so far have dealt with shortsightedness of planning, and failed policies; stuff that really only sells to the politically motivated (and we already have opinions at this point.) But if you throw "cover-up" into the mix, suddenly the whole country is being addressed; everyone knows what that means, and no one likes it. The difference between yelling "unfunded mandate" into a crowded media cycle and yelling "the government is lying to you” is huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 The AWOL issue, and the drug abuse talk isn't about changing votes from W to Kerry; it's about suppressing turn-out. If a bad enough picture can be painted of W in a "moral" light the less motivated the Evangelical vote may be. The reason I think the Graham book has the potential to be bigger, is the word "cover-up". The bulk of the anti-Bush books so far have dealt with shortsightedness of planning, and failed policies; stuff that really only sells to the politically motivated (and we already have opinions at this point.) But if you throw "cover-up" into the mix, suddenly the whole country is being addressed; everyone knows what that means, and no one likes it. The difference between yelling "unfunded mandate" into a crowded media cycle and yelling "the government is lying to you” is huge. 21418[/snapback] Looks like America is the loser again, no matter which of these idiots is elected. Love the 2 party system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 8, 2004 Share Posted September 8, 2004 Looks like America is the loser again, no matter which of these idiots is elected. Love the 2 party system. 21453[/snapback] In general, the two party system has served us pretty well, until maybe 15 years ago or so. I don't want to be like Italy, or France with all their parties, or the like the Muslim nations with their ONE party, or their one family in control. Maybe a three party system would be better. The Good party, The Bad party, and the Ugly party. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost parties. The Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains parties. The more I think about it, three is better than two. It's definitelty more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts