"Barbarossa" <fa073505@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:414a0659$0$4152$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:AJc2d.7181$lb5.929657@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vx42d.32134$KU5.29743@edtnps89...

All based on mere unproved speculation as admitted by her on CNN.

J.

She is also a democrat.

And that is relevant information because.....?

It should be obvious. She trashed the Reagans and now the Bushes. Not a
peep about Clinton, however.

"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cif9ju0v89@enews1.newsguy.com...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AJc2d.7181$lb5.929657@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vx42d.32134$KU5.29743@edtnps89...

All based on mere unproved speculation as admitted by her on CNN.

J.

She is also a democrat.

Jane

Zell Miller's a democrat, too.
Dr. B

See, there are some good democrats!

Jane

Dr. Blunt a écrit:

Scathing look by Kitty Kelley into the private lives of the Bush

family,

in her book "The Family." Highlights at --

"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cif9ju0v89@enews1.newsguy.com...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AJc2d.7181$lb5.929657@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vx42d.32134$KU5.29743@edtnps89...

All based on mere unproved speculation as admitted by her on CNN.

J.

I've seen several TV interviews with Kelley and I never heard her say her
book is based on "unproved" speculation, but, instead, that her
information came from mostly unnamed sources which she thought were
reliable.

"Dr. Blunt" <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cif9ju0v89@enews1.newsguy.com...

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AJc2d.7181$lb5.929657@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vx42d.32134$KU5.29743@edtnps89...

All based on mere unproved speculation as admitted by her on CNN.

J.

I've seen several TV interviews with Kelley and I never heard her say her
book is based on "unproved" speculation, but, instead, that her
information came from mostly unnamed sources which she thought were
reliable. The "speculation" is inserted when her sources have occasionally
been ambigious in their statements.
It would be highly unlikely she would trash her own book by saying what
you claim she said in a CNN interview. That is, that her entire book is
"based" on "unproved speculation."
She once wrote "Jackie Oh!" (1978) which smeared JFK's very decidedly
liberal Democrat wife. That tome is never included when fans of Jacqueline
O'Nassis make recommended references.
So, she hasn't inclusively written shocking exposes on conservative
figures.

Dan Rather is a big boy. He can defend himself because he has CBS
behind him. Margie Schoedinger was not so lucky. She did not have
the luxury to promote her views on national television. Margie
Schoedinger was a woman who filed a sexual assault lawsuit against
George W. Bush. Margie Schoedinger claimed that George Bush had
raped her, but the court documents filed to prove the point were so
outrageous, that it is easier to believe in space aliens --which
raises the question, were the court documents authentic? In
retrospect, court documents outlined bizarre and outrageous
allegations as a tactic to divert attention away from any detail
about the alleged rape. It would be nice to be able to confirm or
deny what is beginning to look like a common, diversionary tactic,
but on September 22nd 2003, Ms. Schoedinger received a gunshot wound
to the head, allegedly, self-inflicted. Dan Rather has the
opportunity to defend himself against the effort to discredit him.
Ms. Schoedinger was denied the opportunity. Ms. Schoedinger's law
suit was filed on December 2, 2002 and at the time, she was sane and
competent enough to act as her own legal representative.

Ms. Schoedinger was not a publicity seeker. When questioned by a
reporter, the 38-year-old African-American woman who lived in the
Houston suburb of Missouri City, said, "I am still trying to
prosecute [the lawsuit], I want to get this matter settled and go on
with my life." At the same time, Schoedinger was surprised the case
wasn't covered more in the media because, in her own words, "it is
true......People have to be accountable for what they do, and that's
why I'm pursuing it." Ms. Schoedinger did not sound like a crackpot
who filed bizarre court documents and killed herself. There was
nothing outlandish about Ms. Schoedinger, outside the possibility
that outlandish court documents were not authentic --they were
merely supposed to divert attention away from Ms. Schoedinger's
assertion that she had been raped by George Bush.

It is ironic that the Republican trash machine has inadvertently
revived the memory of Ms. Schoedinger. Indeed, the current effort to
bury the embarrassing gaps of Bush's National Guard service, have
resurrected Margie Schoedinger's neglected story. After all, this
controversy about the authenticity of documented evidence is
ultimately about credibility, and how do we assess that? First and
foremost, it is important to understand the fact that Karl Rove rose
to political prominence by stealing Democratic candidate letterhead
and producing fraudulent documentation, to produce the opportunity
to promote lies about democrats. Karl Rove is the expert in the art
of using fraudulent documentation to misrepresent the truth, and it
is therefore reasonable to assume that the current, CBS controversy
is nothing more than manufactured theatre -to shift the focus away
from the reliable information in the document to the document
itself.

Clearly, that is the only consequence of the current controversy
that is produced by repeatedly insisting that the 60 Minutes story
about newly found documents about President Bush's National Guard
service has eliminated any remaining credibility at CBS News.
Likewise, the absurd demand to fire Dan Rather is equally
preposterous and this obsessive determination to divert attention
away from credible allegations by creating a phony controversy is
not new. It is the time honored practice that has repeatedly rescued
George Bush from embarrassing allegations.

Dan Rather is currently being attacked with the ferocity that is
spared for people who tell the truth. After all, there is no dispute
over the fact that George Bush received preferential treatment to
get into the National Guard and stay stateside during the Vietnam
War, and that he failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.
The documents that are necessary to prove or dispute these well
known facts have conveniently vanished without a trace or their
authenticity is challenged, but that does not change anything
because the truth is absolutely invincible.

Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer from Texas, witnessed
efforts in 1997 in Texas by allies of then-Gov. Bush to destroy
military records that might "embarrass the governor," but that does
not change anything because the truth is absolutely invincible.
Perhaps, Bush's allies think that the current, National Guard
document is not authentic because they thought they destroyed
everything. The White House contends Mr. Bush received no favorable
treatment and fulfilled his duties. If that is the case, the White
House should produce the documents that prove it. In the meantime,
the tactics that Karl Rove is bringing to the White House are
absolutely repugnant. If, for example, somebody decided to attack
the credibility of Ms. Schoedinger by making her allegations sound
preposterous [ie. the outlandish statement of claim is not
authentic], Karl Rove's perverse capacity to destroy the substance
of an allegation, demands serious investigation. Did Ms. Schoedinger
in fact kill herself, or is she a victim of Karl Rove's slimey
tactics? We all know that George Bush avoided service in Vietnam by
pretending to be on active duty in the National Guard, but what else
is George W. Bush trying to cover up?

http://media.shorturl.com

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 11:15:25 -0700, Dr. Blunt <ufocalypse@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Jane" <pushlinque@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:AJc2d.7181$lb5.929657@news20.bellglobal.com...

"Jean Guernon" <jguernon@globetrotter.net> wrote in message
news:vx42d.32134$KU5.29743@edtnps89...

All based on mere unproved speculation as admitted by her on CNN.

J.

She is also a democrat.

Jane

Zell Miller's a democrat, too.
Dr. B

LOL ... regretfully.