From: JenniferKC@aol.com
Subject: Bill Bennett: DUI not serious 'unless he lied about it'
Bill Bennett, Bush apologist, on the Today Show:
"Is there any suspicion he ever LIED about this?
No".
Bill Bennett is a lying son of a bitch.
Smirk can do anything and be OK with Bennett, because Bennett
only sees crimes by people with a "D," after their name.
The idea that Smirk "didn't try to lie" when he was caught red-assed
is so laughable on it's face. He lied his ass off for years,
and when proof
hit the headlines, he had no choice but to admit it.
From: duprass@home.com
Subject: Shrub DUI
Yo, BC:
Didn't you mention that El Pigboy was talking
early this week
about a bombshell about to erupt from the Bush
campaign?
Well, everyone is acting as if the "Bush DUI"
story just materialized out of thin air...
Did they know this was coming?
Did Rush know?
And when did he know?
Inquiring minds want to know...
Mikey
Yes,
Rush calls this "dirty politics," but he's the one who knew first.
From: KVMahon@aol.com
Subject: DWI and AWOL
Dear Bartcop,
Has anybody else noticed that both DWI and AWOL have the letter "W" in them?
Cordially,
Kelly
ha ha
From: bushwatch.com
1. BUSH LIED ON "MEET THE PRESS," 11/21/99
TIM RUSSERT: If someone came to you and said, "Governor, I'm sorry,
I'm going to go public with some information." What do you do?
GOV. BUSH: If someone was willing to go public
with information that was damaging,
you'd have heard about it by now. You've had
heard about it now. My background has
been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters.
Tim, we can talk about this all morning.
2. BUSH LIED TO "DALLAS MORNING NEWS," 1998
"Just after the governor's reelection in 1998, Dallas Morning Whore's
Wayne Slater
pressed Bush about whether he had ever been arrested. 'He said,
"After 1968? No."'" New
Republic
3. BUSH LIED TO CBS, 1999.
"Bush has often acknowledged past mistakes, but CBS News Correspondent
Lee Cowan reports that in a 1999 interview with CBS station WBZ in
Boston,
he denied there was any so-called smoking gun." CBS
Have you heard the vulgar, lying Pigboy today?
He says the FACT that Smirk has been arrested at least three times,
including his DWI arrest in Maine (that he lied
about) proves that he
has good character and would make a good president.
Who but Pigboy, (and Fox news, of course) could argue that
drunk-driving and lying about it is proof of good character?
And the press continues to lay down.
When Gore's kid was arrested this summer for speeding
it got more coverage than Smirk's arrest and cover-up.
Would President Smirk get a four-year free ride?
Texas reporter says Bush denied arrest
Questions about Smirk's drunken-driving arrest
24 years ago
overshadowed the final leg of his White House
race against Gore.
Acknowledging the 1976 incident, Bush said he
had been "very candid"
about his drinking problems, though he never
revealed the arrest.
But Wayne Slater, a Dallas Morning Whore reporter
said Smirk denied
being arrested to him in 1998 Austin, Texas.
Slater asked Smirk if he had
been arrested after 1968, when Bush had been
arrested for being involved
in a fraternity prank. Slater said Bush said,
"No."
As Slater spoke, Karen Hughes, Bush's communication
director, joined the
conversation, at first questioning whether Bush
and Slater's conversation
was for public use and then disputing Slater's
account.
"That conversation was off the record,
wasn't it Wayne?" Hughes asked
in a tense moment as a crush of reporters surrounded
Slater and Hughes in the
aisle of the plane as Bush settled into the front
cabin nearby.
Wait - why is it OK to lie if it's "off the record?"
What else does the press know that's "off the record?"
The whore press does it again.
Did you know it was FOX that broke this story?
The best question to ask the Smirk, one that any experience debater
or
trial attorney would ask is, "What else haven't you told us?"
That's a blanket question that'd fuck him if he lies or fails to answer.
If Smirk says, "That's all, there's nothing more," then all the press
would
have to do is drop one more bomb and Smirk would be toast.
But they're too scared to ask that question - why?
Did you see the smirking idiot last night?
In a live press conference on CNN, he smirked and said,
"I was drinking with John Newcomb," as tho he shouldn't have
been punished
for drinking with a semi-sorta-famous tennis player. The bastard just
smirked
his way thru another press conference, while the sheep reporters
ate it up.
From: eek105@psu.edu
Subject: dui
Did you see that W's texas driving license
was not affected by his arrest for DUI?
Most states want you to surrender any licenses
from other states, don't they?
eric
Eric, I don't know.
Unlike the Republican nominee, I've never had a DWI.
From: slcrand@uswest.com
Subject: George W. Barleycorn
I wanted to get these thoughts off to you before Rush's radio show airs
today.
I am going to predict exactly how he will approach the latest
(wonderful)
revelations about Shrubya's DUI in Maine in 1976.
#1. - It was too long ago to make any difference. It was
youthful indiscretion
(yeah, right, at 30 years old. Holey crap you can run for president
when you're 35!).
#2 - The timing was not only interesting but the motive is certainly
suspect. It must be
the Democrats (no, it was some reporter from some newspaper who
did the research.
Chances are everyone in the Bush camp knew about this.
You reported at the beginning
of the week that Rush said there'd be a major announcement coming.
I might've been
born at night but I wasn't born last night. Everyone of the inner
circle guys are hip to everything).
And #3. - The Democrats and they're controlled media has brought the
art of politics
to a new low. Well, let me say this about that: the
Republicans might not have invented the
"Shoot know, sort 'em out later" approach to handling an opponent,
but they sure have
perfected it the last 8 years. The difference here, though,
is while all of the allegations
thrown at Clinton were proven to be untrue and they were lucky
to find a blow job to
wrap they're hands around (wow, picture that for a moment) Shurbya's
DUI is true!
No question about it. Can't weasel out of it. Na ga
da! It's there for all of us to see.
And he's refused to own up to this youthful indiscretion ever
since he began his campaign.
Well you know what? I wonder how many of these other rumors
(Coke, Abortion, Military Service) are really true. Me
thinks all of them.
Steve Crandall
Justice' in Great State isn't
great
by Molly Ivins
AUSTIN -- In Texas, the state where you have a right to a lawyer who
sleeps through
your murder trial, we are familiar with life under George W. Bush's
concept of justice for all.
The recent "Hey, a sleeping lawyer is still a lawyer" decision came
from the 5th U.S.
Circuit on a 2-1 decision agreed to by the ever-charming Judge Edith
Jones, who was on
the short list for the Supreme Court when Bush `pere' was president
and will certainly
be so again under Bush `fils.'
Under Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale and Judge Jones' remarkable legal
reasoning,
"It is impossible to determine whether . . . counsel slept during presentation
of crucial
exculpatory evidence, or during the introduction of unobjectionable,
uncontested evidence."
Therefore, they voted to fry the guy.
Actually, the top candidate for Supreme Court under Bush, who is looking
for judges like
Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, is Judge Emilio Garza, the Clarence
Thomas of the
Hispanic world (without any known sexual peccadillos).
Garza recently contributed to the cause of smaller government in a decision
on a case now
before the U.S. Supreme Court, Atwater vs. City of Lago Vista. A Texas
soccer mom was
driving her kids, ages 2 and 6, home from a soccer game when she was
busted for driving
without a seat belt. For this menace to the public order, she was handcuffed,
taken downtown,
body searched, fingerprinted, mug-shot and put in the hoosegow while
Child Protective Services
was called to take her kids away. Fortunately, a neighbor came by and
took the kids instead.
Naturally, the state of Texas is arguing that the Constitution gives
police the power to arrest for
any offense whatsoever, even one carrying a maximum fine of $50, and
then to conduct legal body
and car searches. Now, given the practice of racial profiling in law
enforcement, exactly who do
we think is more likely than your average soccer mom to be affected
by this lunatic doctrine?
A case that will interest constitutional scholars -- actually, it seems
to blow their minds --
is the legal struggle to get Texas to do the minimum for which it is
responsible under Medicaid.
This is an old, bad story, put most concisely by former Public Health
Commissioner Reyn Archer.
The reason that Texas goes to great lengths to keep Medicaid secret
is because we'd have to raise
taxes to pay for it if all the children who are entitled to it were
enrolled in it.
In 1996, the state entered into a consent decree promising that it would
try to do better at outreach
and getting more kids enrolled. And in fairness to the state, it has
made some progress and has
done some outreach.
Unfortunately, we've still got more than a million poor kids without
Medicaid, and the usual horror
stories continue: a boy who had to wait eight weeks to see an orthopedic
specialist for a broken arm,
which required surgery and a pin; another boy treated 17 times for
ear infection in 18 months,
finally taken to a clinic where they tried three times to clear up
the problem -- the kid is still sick
and still hasn't seen a specialist.
You know, I don't think George W. Bush is a mean person. I think he
probably is a compassionate
conservative. There's just some kind of disconnect in his thinking.
He does not seem to grasp that
policy has consequences like this. Time and again I've heard him argue
that every child in Texas
has access to health care because you can take them to the emergency
room at the charity hospital.
Has he ever been there himself?
On Aug. 14, Judge William Wayne Justice ruled that the state had failed
to live up to the decree
it signed in 1996, and that more than a million children are still
being denied the medical care that
the state promised to give them four years ago. So Attorney General
John Cornyn is appealing this
ruling on the improbable grounds that it violates the 11th Amendment.
Now that would be interesting.
The 11th is the one that can be read to say that the power of the United
States doesn't cover a
lawsuit brought by Texans against their own state, and therefore the
federal court can't enforce
the consent decree voluntarily entered into by Texas. And the poor
kids are screwed again.
Bush isn't qualified for
presidency
by GENE LYONS
Excerpt:
It hasn't helped that the media have lowered the bar for
Bush to a height an agile basset
hound could clear. It wasn't seen as a gaffe that for months he appeared
not to grasp that
the $1 trillion he'd divert to "privatize" Social Security was already
committed to pay seniors'
benefits. Nor was it a lie when he mocked Gore's "fuzzy math" in the
first presidential debate,
then casually admitted his opponent's numbers were correct during the
third.
Nor when he falsely said Gore's campaign outspent
his when the GOP's outspent the
Democrats almost 2-to-1. Even when Bush took credit for a patient's
bill of rights he'd
first vetoed, then allowed to become law without his signature, only
Clinton called his hand.
Let me get this straight:
Mentioning your opponent's arrest record is "dirty politics?"
From: ronaldhenry@theriver.com
Subject: Perot
So the goofball perot endorses "dubya",
what a surprise.
Let me see, I wonder what his reason might
be for supporting him.
His stand on environmental issues (tax cut
for top 1%)
Social security (tax cut for top 1%)
Medicare (tax cut for top 1%)
education reform (tax cut for top 1%)
and, oh yeah, his across the board tax
cuts (tax cut for top 1%)
Plus the marriage tax, the inheritance tax for billionaires, and
remember,
Gore knocked Perot out of politics with his NAFTA-debate ass-kicking.
From: jbhigdon@townsend.com
Subject: OPEN LETTER TO THE WASHINGTON PRESS CORPS.
Dear Journalists:
The revelation that George W. Bush had a DUI conviction in Maine 24
years ago should
not be viewed as an irrevokable blight on the character of this presidential
candidate.
However, the fact the he kept it from the American people, through
the primary season
and on through to the end of the national campaign, should raise a
few red flags.
Could he be hiding something else?
Gov. Bush has said that he attempted to keep this private to protect
his daughters.
Very well, but when President Clinton said that he was attempting to
protect his family
covering up an "inappropriate relationship," his explanation was met
with derision by the
Washington press. Before election day, we should ask if
there is anything else from
which the Governor's daughters need to be protected.
As a voter, the following are the questions I would have you ask.
They are vital to my determination of whether George W. Bush has the
character
to lead the most powerful nation on Earth.
1. We know that the Governor had his Texas driver's license number changed
in recent years,
and that the records attached to the previous number are sealed.
We also know that he did
community service work in Texas, but we don't know why.
What do the records show that are attached to the previous driver's
license?
Are there more DUIs, or perhaps drug arrests?
2. We know that the military records of the Governor seem to indicate
that he was absent
without authorization for a year and a half, and that the Governor
has never provided a
detailed explanation of why this is not the case. Commanding
officers say that, to their
recollection, he did not report although he was ordered to do so.
We know that a group
of veterans offered a reward of $5,500.00 to anyone who could come
forward and prove
that Bush was present and accounted for during any segment of the time
in question.
We know that no one has come forward. We know that he avoided
a required physical,
and that avoidance grounded him as a pilot.
What causes the discrepancy between the official record and the Governor's
explanation?
Why do some of the records, acquired subsequently to the initial FOIA
request appear to
be altered? As the Governor has told us how much he enjoyed flying,
why didn't he simply
keep his doctor's appointment to keep from being grounded? In
view of his DUI and his
refusal to confirm or deny his use of cocain, was he worried about
a required blood screen
for alcohol and narcotics?
3. From the pundits, I would hope that they would pose a question
to the voting public.
Assuming that the Governor's campaign made no attempt to cover up this
DUI arrest,
and that they only refused to speak of it to protect his family, what
does that say about
the Governor's judgment, when he must certainly have known that this
issue could
(and would) arise at any moment prior to election day? Wouldn't
someone of sound
judgment explain the arrest and be up front with the voters at the
campaign's beginning;
and wouldn't that have set the better example to the daughters he was
trying to protect?
Sadly, I don't expect to have these questions answered, or even raised,
prior to election day.
While these questions are far more important than the color of suits,
or the mispronunciation
of words, the important questions never seem to rise to the level of
the trivial. I expect that
the weekend banter will never exceed the discussion of how minor the
DUI seems to be,
and whether the voters will forgive such a minor transgression.
That is unfortunate.
It seems that some pols are subject to "character" questions and others
are not.
There is no doubt in my mind that these questions would be raised against
Al Gore
or Bill Clinton, and they would be expected to answer under the threat
of being
pummeled through Tuesday by the Washington press.
We may, or may not, get satisfactory answers to these questions prior
to Tuesday.
But the public has a right to mull the explanations that are given,
and to measure
the importance of the ones that are not.
My only question to the Washington Press Corps is, will this Fourth
Estate perform
its Constitutional duty to inform the electorate, or not? If
not, the electorate needs
to engage the question--what must we do to get one that will?
James Higdon
From: (withheld)
Subject: Hmmmm....
If the Bush DUI exposure is a dirty Demo plot,
how did Slimfat know about it several days before the story broke??
Please keep me anonymous.
I have no clue who I really am.
From: ronaldhenry@theriver.com
Subject: Bush's DUI
To the Editor,
So George "Dubya" Bush couldn't completely hide his DUI record and he
blames
"politics" that it came out at this late date. Why hasn't the press
been looking into
why he was issued a new drivers license number in Texas after he became
governor,
and his old records purged? This information is nothing new, yet the
so called "liberal"
press has done nothing to investigate.
When asked why he kept this information of the DUI arrest hidden, he
said he had
been very "candid" about his drinking prior to his 40th birthday. I
guess that means,
if anything new, or more specific is uncovered he can say that he'd
already addressed
that in his broad confession of his prior drinking problem. I guess
he's not a man of
many details after all.
"Well, this is something that happened twenty four years ago" squeal
his spin doctors.
Gee, didn't we just spend $50M investigating "alleged" wrongdoing by
the Clintons almost as long ago?
As far as "politics" playing a part in all of this, well duh!!!
Isn't it "politics" when his campaign calls Gore an outright liar,
with no proof by the way.
You reap what you sow!!!
Ronald Henry
From: (withheld)
Subject: Smirk's DWI
I am struggling with my reaction to the news about Bush's DUI arrest.
There was a time when I would have thought it was a non-story because
old news about a long-ago private indiscretion which caused no one
any harm
(although the potential for injury or death from driving drunk is obviously
far
greater than the potential for harm from, say, private sexual behavior)
does not
necessarily reflect on a candidate's fitness for office. However,
events of the
past several years have made me realize that by nature I was a valueless,
amoral person with insufficient reverence for the RULE OF LAW.
Therefore, I now believe the Bush DUI story should play out like this.
A rich left-wing extremist should immediately dispatch a team of private
investigators to the state of Maine. If they turn over enough
rocks and
spread around enough cash, perhaps they can locate a Penthouse centerfold
wannabe who was driving on that Kennebunkport road on the night in
question.
If her memory is properly refreshed, perhaps she will recall that she
saw Bush's
car weaving down that road. She should then file a lawsuit alleging
that her civil
rights were violated and she suffered emotional distress from her fear
that she
might be run off the highway. The Supreme Court, lead by those
stalwarts of
judicial restraint and strict constructionism, Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist,
should
allow the suit to proceed.
Then, a left-wing crackpot Clinton-appointed federal judge should rule
that evidence
regarding every time Bush was ever under the influence of alcohol or
something else
is relevant and discoverable. Indeed, this issue is so serious
that the independant
counsel law should be reinstated and a non-partisan, non-ideologue
like Lawrence
Tribe or Ralph Neas should be appointed to investigate. The independent
counsel
and the lawyers in the civil suit should secretly cooperate so as to
maximize the
chances of finding something devastating and using it against Bush
to best advantage.
Then, some day in the not-too-distant future, Bush will have to appear
for a videotaped
deposition and be questioned about every detail of his drinking and
drug use over his
entire life under penalty of perjury. If he says he once had
30 beers and in fact he
had 31, or if he forgets how many margaritas he had at the Midland
Chamber of
Commerce Christmas party in 1982, or if he is insufficiently helpful
in answering
poorly worded questions, he should be impeached. Only in this
way can the
RULE OF LAW be preserved and the memory of the brave men and women
who
fought and died at Lexington, Gettysburg, Normandy, Iwo Jima and Inchon
be honored.
I don't expect the likes of you to agree with me. But I am heartened
to know that
noble patriots like Henry Hyde, Bob Barr, Dan Burton, Ken Starr, James
Rogan,
David Schippers, Larry Klayman, et al. are no doubt on my side, and
I am certain
that the networks are already launching around-the-clock coverage.
I can see the
nifty CNBC promos now: "America Under Seige; Bush Under the
Influence,"
starring Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh."
Today's Page Two Girl is Sandrine Holt
Read the Previous
Issue
It was the best issue ever.
Go Home to bartcop.com
