The other night (three or four? I forget) Neil Bush was the subject of a local news story. It was said his financial dealings with some schools seemed illegal. There was no follow up. Seems the news people decided against any.
Edgar
Hadn't seen that. The last news about Neil I bumped into was the incident involving prostitutes and big-time business dealings with the families of China's rulers.
Ever wonder why when a story "disappears" or fails otherwise to develop, some folks assume its gotta be a coverup, and other folks are just as convinced it was nothing but scurrilous, unfounded slander? Makes me think, anyway. The truth has wings, but its body is generally between them somewhere.
There was a good letter to the editor in yesterday's NY Times re the Bush experience in the National Guard. The letter writer and a friend sought deferments from the draft during the War--one became a teacher and the other joined the Guard. Because back then--and this is true, because I remember it well--joining the Guard was a way to avoid serving in Vietnam.
The letter writer acknowledges that he and his friend were avoiding the draft, but somehow the whole debate on Bush concerns whether or not he showed up in Alabama. The Guard was very hard to get into, for obvious reasons. Having a dad in a top gov't job didn't hurt, of course.
And it now appears, to boot, that the young Bush never really showed up during his last six months. How is it possible that no one remembers serving with a guy who's now the President? I'd think people would be falling all over themselves to claim they hung out with the future Pres!
Quote:....Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.
So now's he a war historian instead of a lying weasel who traded arms with terrorists.
What do they do over there at Fox, try to think of the most incendiary statement to make and then use it as a headline....... Viet Nam Lost because of Kerry. -- my ass.
Joe
We lost Vietnam because we never had it in the first place.
Joe Nation wrote:Viet Nam Lost because of Kerry
Kerry was not then, nor is he now, that important.
http://www.observer.com/pages/conason.asp
How does this man continue to get away with this? You'd think the American people would get fed up. Guess not.......so far, at least.
In Lola's sample from Joe Conason's Journal, she wrote:
Well, that just must be another lie he's telling, Lola. Either that or Laura the one who is not telling the truth:
Quote:Mrs. Bush also contradicted her husband on his statement that he does not read newspapers and leaves it to his staff to provide him with what he calls unbiased news.
"He does read the papers, of course," Mrs. Bush said, adding that she and her husband make their way through five national newspapers over coffee in bed and then at the breakfast table each day. "I mean we've read the newspapers for years. It's our morning ritual, since the day we married."
NY Times Online
Now if he would only read the papers, he would know he reads the papers...
The scary thing is that although he doesn't read the papers, he does read the bible. And I'm sure he's totally up on that whole wacky fire and brimstone revelation stuff. God help us all.
LOL, PD..............very funny. If only he knew, at least, that his wife thinks he reads the papers.........
A true but sad commentary of the rich and powerful pdiddie...:-)
One can only imagine to what degree Condi Rice and Andy Card editorialize what they see fit to pass onto Dubya in the Oval Office. It's also a wonder that someone who seems to be navigating around in circles doesn't run into the walls.
kickycan wrote:The scary thing is that although he doesn't read the papers, he does read the bible. And I'm sure he's totally up on that whole wacky fire and brimstone revelation stuff. God help us all.
Yeah, it's so comical that the President is a Christian. Laugh it up, bigot.
Welcome back, Scrat! Where and how have you been?
Thanks for the welcome, PD. I've just had better and more pressing things to attend to of late. I hope that my absence was not entirely a source of pleasure for you, and that life is treating you as well as it is me. (I suspect this is largely a function of how well we treat ourselves, but I have been wrong on occasion.) :wink:
Life is good, thanks for asking (if only as a sideways inquiry).
To answer your statement: not at all, much less entirely. You have been missed here, even if by your judgment there were better things for you to do.
Life offline, alas, does require some attention from time to time. Time spent away from A2K, or only spent reading rather than writing, is its own pleasure, I have discovered. And makes the renewing of the expressing of one's opinion as enjoyable as a reclaimed treasure.
I welcome your participation in these fora to whatever extent it provides you your own fulfillment.
