Bush and coke, more to come

[Ruby Ridge]

NEW PROOF BUSH SNORTED COCAINE

While President George W. Bush's spokespeople are denying the allegation in Kitty Kelley's new book that Bush used cocaine, an ENQUIRER investigation has tracked down others who are making similar bombshell charges!
One source, author Toby Rogers, said a former member of George Bush Sr.'s staff revealed to him that George W. used cocaine and "has been out of control since college."

The issue that goes on sale Friday explores Kelley's charge that George W. did cocaine at Camp David while his father was President, that First Lady Laura Bush sold marijuana in college ... and much more.

National Enquirer (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/stories/feature.cfm?instanceid=62344)

Friday, why that's tomorrow!:lol

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

I'm sure the Enquirer got Batboy, fresh off his tour in Iraq, to confirm this for them.

[NameDropper]

That rumor has been going around for quite some time.

The odds are that Bush was one partying son of a bitch and liked to party like it was 1999.

[Spurminator]

Do you think he inhaled it, or did he just hide it in the back of his nostril and blow it out when no one was looking?

[Nbadan]

James Hatfield is turning in this grave.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh it has to be true now.

[Yonivore]

Just so you all know, "proof" is never contained in the statements of a person. Proof is tangible evidence of an event.

Proof would be a photo of George W. Bush snortin' a line of cocaine.

Proof would be a George W. Bush arrest record for an offense related to the use, manufacture, possession, or distribution of cocaine.

Now, whether you choose to believe someone is entirely up to you. But, forwarding what they say as "proof" of something is ludicrous. For instance, I choose to believe the Swiftboat Veteran's for Truth's allegations about Senator Kerry for a number of reasons.

If you choose to believe Kitty Kelly and the National Inquirer, by all means...but, please be sure to give proper attribution to your source when you want to spread their "truths."

[Nbadan]

Proof would be a photo of George W. Bush snortin' a line of cocaine.

I think that W. should be judged under the same standard all criminals are judged. It only takes one credible witness to put you in jail for a long time.

[Joe Chalupa]

Perhaps if he'd a taken his freakin' physical when he was ordered to we would have proof of his coke snortin' days.

Is it so hard to believe that Dubya snorted some cocaine?

So what if he did? Maybe Laura was the benefactor?

[Nbadan]

Maybe Laura was the benefactor?

Sounds like you speak from experience there Joe.

:lol

Kelley wrote in her book that Laura sold pot in college.

[Joe Chalupa]

I can see Laura selling a few bags during her college days.
You know, helpin' out a friend or two.
Laura was probably a real looker back then too.

[LandSharkII]

Kelley wrote in her book that Laura sold pot in college.
Kitty Kelley is the best you can do evidence-wise? That is truly pathetic.

[Nbadan]

Kitty Kelley is the best you can do evidence-wise? That is truly pathetic.

I don't see her getting sued.

[Joe Chalupa]

If memore serves me right, Kitty has never lost a lawsuit against her and she stands beside her book.

Again, is it so hard to believe? Back in the day, I'd a probably joined Dubya. :o

[Yonivore]

I never suggested he didn't snort cocaine.

I'm merely saying there is no proof of it. Period.

And, in any case, it's irrelevant to the Presidential campaign.

[Joe Chalupa]

I agree. Just like the Swift Boat Vets are irrelevant to the Presidential campaign.

[Spurminator]

It's nearly impossible for an author or publication to lose a suit on slander or libel of a public or political figure. That doesn't make Kelley any more credible a source than your average tabloid reporter... who also benefits from the steep burden of proof required to be convicted.

[Spurminator]

By the way, both Kerry and Bush snorted coke. If that's your standard for choosing your President, you're SOL.

But in reality, it's just another peripheral issue for partisans to argue about before the election.

[Nbadan]

It's nearly impossible for an author or publication to lose a suit on slander or libel of a public or political figure.

It's not that impossible. Look at all the hollywood stars who sue the National Enquirer every other month.

[Spurminator]

And how many of them win?

[Yonivore]

"I agree. Just like the Swift Boat Vets are irrelevant to the Presidential campaign."
Except that Kerry made his service in Vietnam the top qualification on his resume.

Oh, did you hear, his own biographer came out today and said, "Kerry isn't the war hero we all thought he was." That's from the guy he hired to write his WAR biography!

LMAO!!!

[Spurminator]

Public Figures, under Supreme Court Law, must PROVE that the person they are suing made allegations "with knowledge that it (the material in question) was false or with reckless disregard of whether if was false or not." This is nearly impossible to do unless you have documentation of the source doubting the allegations he/she would later make.

[Joe Chalupa]

And how many of them win?
All the time.
Sincerely,
Tom Cruise