Kitty Kelley on Bush! Woohoo!

[livius drusus]

First off, I'm just going to go ahead and state for the record that I love Kitty Kelley. Sinatra and The Royals were some of the best times I've ever had with paper products.

Now that that's out of the way, I am just wriggling with glee over her upcoming The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty. I'm going to be first in line at the bookstore next week, let me tell ya, and I'm definitely going to post a long, juicy review.

Some of the trademark Kelley poop is already spreading around (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1299516,00.html), particularly the Camp David coke story, but I'm looking forward to hearing about the lost year in the National Guard on top of all the old cokin' and tokin' dish. Between Kelley's book and Ben Barnes' 60 Minutes interview (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml), we might just get some attentioned paid to the many skeletons in Bush's closet for a change.

:stickman:

[Goliath]

First you draw me in with the thread title "Kitty Kelley on Bush! Woohoo!", and then you start talking about a book!?

:glare:

Cocktease.

:P

[livius drusus]

Hesh you. Meanwhile, all y'all get on over to Salon (http://www.salon.com/books/int/2004/09/14/kelley/index.html) (subscription needed, but you can get a day pass, iirc) and bask in the wonder that is KK.

But, as one of W.'s Yalie frat brothers tells Kelley, it's not the substance abuse in Bush's past that's disturbing, it's the "lack of substance ... Georgie, as we called him, had absolutely no intellectual curiosity about anything. He wasn't interested in ideas or in books or causes. He didn't travel; he didn't read the newspapers; he didn't watch the news; he didn't even go to the movies. How anyone got out of Yale without developing some interest in the world besides booze and sports stuns me." New Yorker writer Brendan Gill recalls roaming the Kennebunkport compound one night while staying there looking for a book to read -- the only title he could find was "The Fart Book."

As colorful stories from Clinton's sexual past in Arkansas began to surface during the campaign, a Clinton aide began digging into the senior Bush's own robust adultery. This included, writes Kelley, two long affairs -- one with Jennifer Fitzgerald, Bush's White House deputy chief of protocol, who, as the Washington Post once slyly put it, "has served President-elect George Bush in a variety of positions," and one with an Italian woman with whom he set up house in a New York apartment in the 1960s. The Clinton aide told Kelley, "I took my list of Bush women, including one whom he had made an ambassador, to his campaign operatives. I said I knew we were vulnerable on women, but I wanted to make damn sure they knew they were vulnerable too." After the eruption over Clinton's mistress Gennifer Flowers died down, sexual infidelity did in fact become a moot issue in the campaign.

"With Sinatra, you just worried about getting the bejabbers beat out of you. But with the Bushes, they work on all sorts of levels to destroy the messenger so the message can't come through. But the message is the message. The stuff I've done is solid. Did I get everything? No. And you know something, we better hurry and try to get all the information we can get -- because this president is trying to lock it all up through executive order, which means you won't be able to get presidential history, because the files and everything will be locked up."

:woohoo:

[Godless Dave]

Bushco is trying to intimidate the media into not having Kelly on or talking about her book, and Larry King has already said he won't have her on. They must be scared of something in there.


Heh heh.

[Goliath]

Very interesting quotes...and yes, Larry King must be afraid of interviewing her for some reason.

When does the book come out?

[livius drusus]

Very interesting quotes...and yes, Larry King must be afraid of interviewing her for some reason.

I have two ideas of what that reason might be:
He's a chickenshit shill bitch
He's the stupidest man alive and knows it.

When does the book come out?

Today, baby! :yes!:

[Goliath]

Today, baby! :yes!:

I may not live near a decent bookstore, but there's still amazon.com. :yup:

Although I already have a crapload of stuff on my "not stuff for research" reading list, I just had to get one more.

[lpetrich]

Hadn't Kitty Kelley already collected a lot of scandalous gossip on the Clintons?

I'm not sure I can be very happy about her work unless her claims can be independently verified. If they cannot, then her gossip-mongering could backfire and get people to feel sorry for the Bush family. And we all know how GWB likes it when people feel sorry for him.

[livius drusus]

Hadn't Kitty Kelley already collected a lot of scandalous gossip on the Clintons?

I'd never heard that, but surely that's no challenge at all what with the Scaifes and Arkansas Projects floating around out there.

I'm not sure I can be very happy about her work unless her claims can be independently verified.

How do you mean exactly? She had multiple sources for many of the stories. One of them, Neil Bush's ex-wife Sharon has already repudiated her claim about the coke snorting at Camp David. What would constitute independent verification of, say, "The Fart Book" being the only publically available literature in the Bush home when Gill was visiting?

If they cannot, then her gossip-mongering could backfire and get people to feel sorry for the Bush family. And we all know how GWB likes it when people feel sorry for him.

I don't recall people feeling sorry for Frank Sinatra or the Windsors, but then again, they aren't elected officials. I seriously doubt Kelley's book is going to sway any undecideds to vote for GWB out of pity. The standard RNC tropes are far more likely to have that impact, imo.

[The Lone Ranger]

The more I read about the Bush clan, the more appalled I am. The whole sense of being "born to rule," for instance. I remember reading numerous reports that the elder Bush was simply furious when he lost to Clinton -- not because he had lost, but because he'd lost to a commoner.

The seeming conviction that they don't have to live by the same rules that the "little people" do. The near-contempt all the members of the Bush clan seem to have for "commoners."

The fact that W., by his own admission has virtually no intellectual curiosity, doesn't read newspapers or otherwise keep up with important affairs of state, and is the beneficiary of "low expectations." What makes this man think he's qualified to be President? Oh yes, I forgot: he's a Bush.

The fact that W. seems to be unwilling and unable to see the world in anything other than simplistic, black-and-white terms -- and he's proud of it!

The fact that W. and company seem to be willing to do anything -- anything -- to get and retain power.



Oh, I could go on and on.

W. could call a press conference and then rape and murder a 10-year-old girl in front of the cameras and you can bet that half the country and all of W.'s handlers would claim that this was just more evidence of the "liberal bias" of the media and how they're "out to get our President."

It boggles the mind that this man can be so clearly incompetent, can be running such a thoroughly corrupt administration, can show such blatant disregard for concepts like truth and accountability, such outright hypocrisy in criticizing and harshly punishing others for things that he and his family seem to consider "normal behavior," and such utterly callous disregard for the lives and well-being of those whom he governs -- and yet be so popular!

Why has this man not been run out of D.C. on a rail by now? What does he have to do?


Ugh! I feel like I need a shower every time I hear him on the radio.

-- Michael

[viscousmemories]

It boggles the mind that this man can be so clearly incompetent, can be running such a thoroughly corrupt administration, can show such blatant disregard for concepts like truth and accountability, such outright hypocrisy in criticizing and harshly punishing others for things that he and his family seem to consider "normal behavior," and such utterly callous disregard for the lives and well-being of those whom he governs -- and yet be so popular!

Why has this man not been run out of D.C. on a rail by now? What does he have to do?
One of my nieces - just recently old enough to vote - told me she plans to vote for Bush 'cause there's a war going on and it's better to have someone who already knows the job than to hire a new guy. Honestly I think it boils down to fear. I think some people see the difference between Bush and Kerry as literally the difference between a cowboy and an intellectual geek. They feel better knowing that Bush isn't afraid to use the big guns on our enemies, be they real or imagined...

[lpetrich]

This reminds me of a very horrible thought I once had, one that I've seldom been willing to discuss with others.

The thought that GWB might be willing to "offer his daughters to God" in hope of the continuing rule of the Bush family.

I'm thinking of something like what Abraham was described as willing to do with Isaac in Genesis 22. Or Agamemnon with Iphigenia.

All the right-wingers would faithfully parrot the Official Party Line, a.k.a. talking points, on this act, and would denounce critics as God-hating anti-American terrorist-loving traitors.

Edited to add: it must be said that I doubt that GWB would be very familiar with the Biblical or mythological references; I suspect that his knowledge of the Bible is limited to what has been spoonfed to him by his theological advisors.

[Godless Dave]

I had sort of a similar thought. We all know Bush supports "traditional" (ie non-gay) marriage. I've been waiting for him to say he thinks the US should stick to marriage as defined in the Bible, at which point I would offer him 30 shekels and a camel for Jenna or Barbara (his choice).

[Godless Dave]

Furthermore, this thread is a great excuse to post this image:

http://www.truthspeaker.org/img/bush-coke.jpg

[livius drusus]

I just finished the author's preface. It's amazing how much pull the Bushes really have.

On September 18, 2001, I filed a FOIA request for information on James Smith Bush (1901-78), the black-sheep uncle of George Herbet Walker Bush. The FBI said there were no files. I appealed, knowing that James had undergone FBI clearance for his appointment in 1961. Four months later, on January 14, 2002, the Justice Department lawyers referred my request back to the FBI, which then managed to find the records they initially claimed not to have. Six months later, on July 24, 2002, I was informed that the files had to be processed and sent to the FBI's Office of Public and Congressional Affairs for a "high visibility memo" to be prepared. This was explained as an administrative procedure by which public figures -- President Bush (41) and President Bush (43) -- were warned about the release of material. Six more months passed as the FBI returned none of my phone calls requesting information. Finally, on February 19, 2003, I hired a lawyer to appeal the delay. After receiving the lawyer's leter, the FBI released the information. By then, it had taken me two years, seventeen letters, forty-two phone calls, and one lawyer to shake loose information on a man who had been dead for twenty-five years. The Bush family has been able to hold tight to its secrets because they have been aided in many cases by Bush-appointed bureaucrats.
-- The Family, Kitty Kelley, pg. XXV

[LadyXoc]

Very interesting quotes...and yes, Larry King must be afraid of interviewing her for some reason.

I have two ideas of what that reason might be:
He's a chickenshit shill bitch
He's the stupidest man alive and knows it.

When does the book come out?

Today, baby! :yes!:

Damn straight. I ordered it on Amazon and I can't wait til it arrives.

[livius drusus]

It's good readin' so far, LadyXoc. Oh, and welcome to FF. :hisign:

[LadyXoc]

Thanks - great board you have here!

[livius drusus]

Thank you. I'm glad you like it. :)

[Sonnet]

Please, PLEASE: someone tell me he isn't going to win this election. Please. I can't stand it. I can't stand to have so little faith in America, but if the majority of us really do put that fucker back in for a second term, I'm afraid I don't know what other conclusion I can reach.

We aren't going to have to face four more years of this, are we?

Are we? :(

[Godless Dave]

I'm more worried about him stealing it (again) than actually winning legitimately. If he wins legitimately, if that many Americans actually vote for him after all the blatantly stupid, immoral, and downright treacherous shit he's done, then I'm giving up on this country and heading north.

[Gawen]

I'm more worried about him stealing it (again) than actually winning legitimately. If he wins legitimately, if that many Americans actually vote for him after all the blatantly stupid, immoral, and downright treacherous shit he's done, then I'm giving up on this country and heading north.
(bold mine)

Since when does the popular vote elect presidents? Nah, I'll get this book and stick around. Maybe we can change this country back to what it should have been...even if it takes four more years to start.

Besides, we can only hope that if Bushco is re-elected, he could attack Syria and Lebanon. That won't go over very well...(shit eatin grin)

Then again, I made a comment some time ago on the parallels of this country and Weimar (1920's and 30's) Germany. Just change a few words here and there, and blame Islam instead of Jews. You'd be surprised. The causes may be different, but the ways and means are uncannily close.

Disclaimer: In no way am I saying America and its politics are Nazi oriented.

[viscousmemories]

Then again, I made a comment some time ago on the parallels of this country and Weimar (1920's and 30's) Germany. Just change a few words here and there, and blame Islam instead of Jews. You'd be surprised. The causes may be different, but the ways and means are uncannily close.
Y'know, not long before we opened this forum squian made a similar comment, and I started this thread (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=801) over at SC to solicit input about it. Maybe you should read that over and start a thread here to explore the subject from your own perspective. I'm interested. :yup:

[Gawen]

Y'know, not long before we opened this forum squian made a similar comment, and I started this thread (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=801) over at SC to solicit input about it. Maybe you should read that over and start a thread here to explore the subject from your own perspective. I'm interested. :yup:
Good grief VM, that's a tall order. I am...somewhat....versed in Weimar history, but it'll take time to put it all from thought to paper. Lots of variables to explore.

[viscousmemories]

Y'know, not long before we opened this forum squian made a similar comment, and I started this thread (http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=801) over at SC to solicit input about it. Maybe you should read that over and start a thread here to explore the subject from your own perspective. I'm interested. :yup:
Good grief VM, that's a tall order. I am...somewhat....versed in Weimar history, but it'll take time to put it all from thought to paper. Lots of variables to explore.
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to suggest you make a dissertation out of it or anything. I'm just interested in what specific parallels you see and thought that other thread might help you crystallize your comments if you wanted to start a thread on the subject.

[maddog]

I'm interested, too, but also do not require a dissertation -- just some gross observations would be enough to start a dialogue.

For myself, I've been struck (and I've actually held this thought consistently since I was about 11-12 years old) with the parallels to the collapse of the Roman republic. I've been sure almost all my life that I was witnessing the decline and fall of the American republic.

This focus has been made all the more sharply for me by delving into Colleen McCullough's "Masters of Rome" series, which is fictional, (we were just talking about these books in the historical novels thread) but still pretty good history. The Roman constitution was a bit more traditional and organic than the written American constitution, though the Twelve Tables I think date back to the original monarchical period, but the impulse to push the envelope of traditional norms and political customs and usages, to invent new ones that, while they weren't expressly forbidden, took the original concepts and tweaked them out of their ordinary shape, bears a striking resemblance to me of court packing, campaign dirty tricks, etc. "Tax cuts" are the new "bread and circuses," but for the rich, not for the masses. Term limits as a substitute for elections. Campaign finance reform as a means to hide slush money even more deeply from scrutiny. "Tort reform" and "frivolous lawsuits" to close the doors of the courts to anyone but corporations. Privatizing everything, so that corporate interests milk the public fisc. School "competition" rather than improving public education. Pumping tax dollars into churches for "religious charities" competing for aid money. Expanding economic empires overseas for new markets and cheap labor. Everything concentrates ever more personal power into fewer and fewer hands. Eventually, when we run out of markets to exploit, our economy will collapse.

These parallel, to some degree, the Gracchi grain subsidies, Marius's "head count" addition to the army (using public funds to pay for armies, which is the thing that led to personal loyalty and command -- Roman commanders could raise and control armies of their own), seeking more than the customary number of consulships, patricians standing for offices traditionally reserved for the plebs, etc. The republic became a monarchical empire, and the economic needs of the empire eventually overreached the ability of Rome to oversee it effectively. Every push of the envelope was another nail in the coffin of the republic.

#19

[lpetrich]

First the Weimar Republic and now the Roman Republic. Wow! Lots of interesting analogies. :)

Here is what survives of Rome's Twelve Tables (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/12tables.html), a collection of laws that dates to 450 BCE. There's nothing in them on the structure of government; all of those laws are personal and property and court-procedure law. And although most of them is fairly reasonable, if sometimes trivial-looking, some of them are just plain sexist.

It's a great disappointment that some sets of the Ten Commandments are better-known than the Twelve Tables, because the Twelve Tables are a much more plausible ancestor to our legal system than the Ten Commandments.

And one nice thing about the Twelve Tables -- there's no religion in them.

But I think that this may be more suited for another thread.

[Goliath]

I just got my copy from amazon today. I can't promise that I'll be able to read it all soon, as I have a lot on my plate right now (especially after just getting my copies of the Star Wars trilogy on DVD and Star Wars: Battlegrounds :P )...but even if the Bush Clan decides to ban the book and destroy as many copies as possible, at least one will survive. :D

[Dingfod]

I just got my copy from amazon today. I can't promise that I'll be able to read it all soon, as I have a lot on my plate right now (especially after just getting my copies of the Star Wars trilogy on DVD and Star Wars: Battlegrounds :P )...but even if the Bush Clan decides to ban the book and destroy as many copies as possible, at least one will survive. :DYou think that now, but when the Secret Police break in and steal it, you only wonder if you had only imagined it ever existed. heh