Bush on coke (was: Bush on fascists)

> From: X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 8:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] Bush on fascists
>
>
> [Regarding Pres. Bush, John stated as a fact:
>
> > After snorting coke throughout his youth ...
>
> Documentation please.

From <http://www.bushwatch.org/bushcoke.htm>:

>> "Gov. George W. Bush, dogged by criticism for
>> refusing to say whether he has used illegal drugs,
>> answered part of the question Wednesday and said
>> he had not done so in the last seven years.
>> Mr. Bush's statement came in response to a question
>> from The Dallas Morning News about whether, as
>> president, he would insist that his appointees
>> answer drug-use questions contained in the standard
>> FBI background check. 'As I understand it, the
>> current form asks the question, 'Did somebody use
>> drugs within the last seven years?' and I will be
>> glad to answer that question, and the answer is
>> 'No,' Mr. Bush told The News."

From a later article on the same webpage:

>> Now, we wonder how long it will take the nation
>> to get sick of Bush's game of "Obfuscation." Here's
>> how it has worked with his cocaine crisis. According
>> to Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, "Bush has
>> privately reassured some top supporters that his
>> 'youthful mistakes' did not involve hard drugs and
>> would not disqualify him to be president, according
>> to several sources." If that's really the case,
>> why can't Bush assure the American people? Is it
>> because the only people that really count in Dubya's
>> world are people with big money? Why can't Bush tell
>> the average citizen that "his 'youthful mistakes'
>> did not involve hard drugs"? ...However, the final
>> obfuscation is that Bush finally never really addressed
>> his own question: could he pass the current White House
>> test? Based on what Bush has said thus far, the answer
>> is, no: "Bush's answer yesterday fell short of the
>> standard required of senior government officials both
>> in the Bush administration and in the Clinton administration,
>> who must reveal drug use back to age 18," wrote Balz.
>> Further, Bush has never addressed the specific question
>> reporters have been asking for months: Did he ever use
>> cocaine? "Yes" or "no" would suffice.

OK, so that's still not proof that he *did* snort coke.
But his subsequent responses to questions about this
have been so evasive that they clearly point to
unadmitted guilt, IMO.

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> From: X. J. Scott <xjscott@...>
> To: <metatuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2001 7:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] Bush on coke (was: Bush on fascists)
>
>
> > OK, so that's still not proof that he *did* snort coke.
>
> Er, agreed.
>
> > But his subsequent responses to questions about this
> > have been so evasive that they clearly point to
> ---------------------
> > unadmitted guilt, IMO.
> ----------------
>
> Harumf.
>
> So that's what you take for clear proof?

Huh?

You just quoted me as saying "that's still not proof", and
then underlined my conclusion but not the "IN MY OPINION" part.

My post couldn't have been more clear.

?????????

I agree with John deL. that President Dubya has every
right to avoid answering this question if he so chooses,
as long as he's not under oath.

BUT, I have a real problem with the fact that he refuses
to explain to anyone *why* he chooses to avoid giving a
clear-cut answer. This convinces me of his guilt and
of a refusal to admit it. And that's *MY OPINION*.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com