THE BOOK BUSH WANTED BANNED ROLLS OUT IN CHICAGO

In front of reporters from publications including BuzzFlash.com, the Washington Post, USA Today and Inside.com, Jim Hatfield, author of "Fortunate Son," the controversial Bush Expose, dropped a bombshell. Hatfield claimed that the original confirmation of a long-rumored 1972 Bush arrest for cocaine was none other than Karl Rove, White House dirty trickster extraordinaire. Hatfield said that the arrest was also confirmed by long-time Bush associates Clay Johnson and Rev. Mayfield. (BuzzFlash notes that it cannot independently confirm or refute Hatfield's allegations and they are the claims of the author, not BuzzFlash.com.)

Why would Rove confirm such a rumor to Hatfield? According to the author's allegations, Rove was setting him up. In the summer of 1999, the source of renewed interest in the Bush cocaine story was none other than Bush himself. In August of 1999, Bush was being questioned about drugs in his past at a news conference. He would only say, in essence, that he hadn't taken drugs in the past 25 years, but refused to say that he never took drugs. That would put the alleged 1972 cocaine arrest outside of the time range of his statement to the press.

Shortly after that news conference, Salon.com wrote further on the alleged cocaine rumors. According to the preface of "Fortunate Son":

"Hatfield's book was in final proofing stages when a story broke on the online magazine Salon. The piece stated that Bush had been arrested in the early '70s for drug use, and that he "was ordered by a Texas judge to perform community service in exchange for expunging his record showing illicit drug use," according to an anonymous tip-off. This article was the first to suggest that Bush did community service in Houston in exchange for having his record expunged. Hatfield went to work corroborating this story through Johnson and Rove, his regular sources of information. According to Hatfield, Rove and Johnson discussed the cocaine arrest on the phone, under condition of anonymity. Rove had earlier taken Hatfield on a fishing trip to Lake Eufaula, Oklahoma, to discuss Bush."

Shortly after a reporter for the Dallas Morning News revealed that Hatfield had his own skeletons in his closet, St. Martin's, the original publisher of "Fortunate Son," recalled all 88,000 copies of the book.

Hatfield charges that Papa Bush asked a Texas judge to have George W's cocaine conviction expunged. Others, by the way, charge that Dubya's staff had evidence that Dubya did not serve his last year in the National Guard similarly removed. The unfortunate side effect of the cocaine charge, whatever its merits, is that it overshadows a well-documented book on Bush's foibles and record. By discrediting Hatfield, Rove, if Hatfield's theory is correct, accomplished two goals: He buried the rumor by shooting the messenger, and he got the book deep-sixed at a time it would have potentially damaged Bush's run for the presidency.

Perhaps the cocaine charge is the most sensational item in the book, but more importantly, the book shows how the past is the prologue as far as Bush's record in Texas.

Hatfield declared at the news conference, held Saturday by Soft Skull Press (who rescued the book from oblivion) at the BookExpo America in Chicago, that the only promise George W. Bush made that he's kept is, "I will do for America what I did for Texas." As recent news accounts have emerged of the financial disaster Texas is facing because of his ruinous Lone Star State tax cut (see http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ipmi/20010529/cm/_what_can_you_do_when_the_cupboard_is_bare__1.html ); the efforts underway to reform the morally corrupt capital punishment system; the state's top ranking levels of pollution; the stories of children in Texas who have been left behind; the accounts of a state that Bush handed over to the NRA to write gun policy - these and many other articles about the mess Bush left behind in Texas are foreshadowed in Hatfield's book.

Also the book describes how the Bush strategists adopted a two pronged propaganda strategy early on his political career: Bush claims to be a uniter and conciliator, while his Karl Rove-led staff go out and slander and smear. Just ask John McCain what happened to him in South Carolina or Ann Richards when Bush ran against her for Governor of Texas.

If Rove succeeds in tarnishing Hatfield the second time around, without refuting the information presented in "Fortunate Son," Americans will lose another opportunity to understand the ruinous effects of Bush Incorporated.

At the news conference to announce the publication of a second edition, a reporter for Inside.com kept hammering away at questions about Jim Hatfield's character. Except for BuzzFlash.com, nary a question was raised about the content of the book and its implications that we have a president who is long on misleading propaganda while short sheeting us on performance. We have a president who is the product of affirmative action for the wealthy, but who is quickly dismantling government efforts to give a few breaks to the less fortunate. We have a president who ran as a moderate, but governs from the extremist right.

If St. Martin's hadn't recalled "Fortunate Son" at the end of 1999, we might have known better.

-- Cherri (jessam5@home.com), June 04, 2001

Answers

"Hatfield said that the arrest was also confirmed by long-time Bush associates Clay Johnson and Rev. Mayfield. (BuzzFlash notes that it cannot independently confirm or refute Hatfield's allegations and they are the claims of the author, not BuzzFlash.com.)"

TRANSLATION: Although we have no evidence that this smear campaign being run by Hatfield is true, we will gladly take part in it. This disclaimer will protect us in the likely event that it is just baseless slander.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), June 04, 2001.

Too many genuine sources, Dr. P. Not "slander" and definitely not "baseless". Look at it this way, if it was, why did Daddy Bush have it banned? Why did the Rove machine go into overdrive to discredit the author (as they did with others before)?

Seems to me one doesn't do that if it's "slander"; one then would take it through the court system because one would have a valid case (and remember, the Bushies have no problem whatsoever using "the court system" :-)). But they didn't. Because they didn't. And they still don't.

Time you Bushies faced up to a fact: They couldn't run little Junior on his "merits", not for governor and certainly not for president. You see, he doesn't HAVE any; hence the Rove machine to discredit opponents. Actually, "discredit" would have been humane, and we can't have that now, can we?

I can't help but feel if this was the "dems" instead, you'd have no problem whatsoever believing any of it.

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 04, 2001.

I’m a big supporter of President Bush and the programs his administration is crafting for our future. Do I believe that George W. Bush may have snorted a little coke back in the 70’s? Hell yes. Who gives a flying fuck anyway? I would say that most folks that went through that era tried a few controlled substances at one time or another.

How bout’ you dear reader? Are you unworthy to conduct your present life because you may have ‘partied’ a little at one time or another? I didn’t think so.

Also, I’m not surprised that there would be an organized effort to keep the President’s youthful indiscretions from the front pages. That’s just how it works, regardless of your political affiliations.

Personally, I’m far more concerned about how an elected official conducts their life while ‘in office’. In that regard, we have a long list of bad behaving politicians to choose from….representing all political influences.

Now, if by chance you are one of the rare few that have not succumbed to the pleasures of chemical mood enhancement, I say to you…….boring.

-- Lay Down (on@the.couch), June 04, 2001.

My dear "couch", we aren't discussing ME. I'M not the one who was (s)elected as president of the U.S.A., apparently based on **false pretenses**. I'M not the one who lied on applications concerning prior arrests and convictions, and I'M not the one who lied about my military (non-)service.

I think it's pretty damn funny though that you haven't addressed one single point that I've made, instead choosing to "make excuses" a la "everyone does it". Gee, that wasn't good enough for another president, was it?

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 04, 2001.

So, if it is reported and printed, it must be so? You’ll have to excuse me as I mistook you for someone that can think rationally.

-- Lay Down (on@the.couch), June 04, 2001.

Time you Bushies faced up to a fact: They couldn't run little Junior on his "merits", not for governor and certainly not for president. You see, he doesn't HAVE any; hence the Rove machine to discredit opponents. Actually, "discredit" would have been humane, and we can't have that now, can we?

His only merit appeared to have been, "well, my daddy was president so that means it's my birthright too!" That was the picture I got in my mind whenever bush tried to talk about his qualifications....

-- Rob (celtic64@mindspring.com), June 04, 2001.

"Couch", you must have forgotten something rather important; it doesn't matter what *I* think. It's the repubs and the right-wing who have set the standard for what is "fact" versus "speculation" and/or "accusation" over the past eight years or so.

And now that you're all getting back a tiny taste of what you gave, suddenly you're all indignant. Guess you all should have thought about that ahead of time.

However, there is a vast difference here. Whereas the "accusations" thrown about over the past eight years were all, save for one, "accusations" with no proof, there IS proof to back up the claims in this book. There are **actual witnesses** and **actual documentation**.

And please keep your "observations" regarding my character and/or intelligence to yourself. I didn't feel a need to comment on yours and I expect nothing less from you. If you cannot address the points being made, then please don't waste your (or my) time.

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 04, 2001.

"Do I believe that George W. Bush may have snorted a little coke back in the 70?s? Hell yes."

Perhaps he snorted, but he didn't inhale. And it isn't about the drugs (or the BJ), it's all about the lies! (Stop me if you've heard this before.)

For me the fascination of the story isn't the coke sniffing. Heck, if I had been able to locate any cocaine that wasn't overpriced and overcut when I was in college, I would have tried it, too. George W. had the connections to locate plenty of the stuff and the money to buy it, so I assume he indulged himself exactly as much as he wanted to.

The real fascination is watching the party faithful turn on a dime and spout today's party line, no matter how much it contradicts yesterday's party line. Kind of like watching the contortions of the Stalinists in the 1930s, who first jeered at trade unionists as sellouts, then celebrated them as partneers in the United Front Against Fascism, only to end the decade straining to swallow the Stalin-Hitler pact without puking.

Frankly, the Democrats would love to have their adherents show that kind of party loyalty, but they rarely rise above the backbiting and infighting far enought to achieve it. OTOH, the Republicans have always been FAR better at keeping the ranks unbroken. Occasionally, their strict party discipline results in this kind of straight-faced absurdity for the connoisseur to savor.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 04, 2001.

My dear Mr. ‘not.s@ying.now’, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I was addressing any and all forum participants when I stated ‘dear reader’. Looks like you still have that air of self-importance that oozed out of all of your posts under your last handle. Who should be surprised?

Also asswipe, I’ll say any fucking thing I want to say…don’t like it….stick your tiny dick between your legs and run off again boy. Thought you learned your lesson son…you need to stay on the porch.

-- Lay Down (on@the.couch), June 04, 2001.

Cherri, if your opinion mattered one whit to me, then your post would have been worth the laboriousness it took to produce it. As it is, you wasted all that time.

-- Old Git (anon@spamproblems.com), June 04, 2001.

Old Shit posted? Hahaha what a fucking piece of manure this person is.

This is the type of moron who would support Dubya even if found he had killed his wife.

Go back to your stupidass webboard moron. I am sure somebody is just beside themselves wondering what type of toilet paper will last the longest and needs your advice.

-- (too@funny.haha), June 04, 2001.

"Couch", you addressed your comments to "dear readers" and I responded (being a "reader" and being one of the ones who responded to the original point being made). You then responded to my response, and are now saying you weren't talking to me in the first place?

Good thing you have a couch there; seems to me you need it.

I was wondering how long it would take you to degenerate into the "norm" for those who have no actual answers, only rhetoric and the ever-popular-amongst-the-low-intellect-crowd, Name Calling.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), most of your "side" exhibits the same character flaws. Oh but that's right; you consider those character traits, don't you? LOL!

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 04, 2001.

Fuck you punk! I want any shit from you..I’ll rip your pointed head off.

-- Lay Down (on@the.couch), June 04, 2001.

I bet "notsayingnow" is Patricia.

-- (not S@ying.either), June 04, 2001.

I will gladly hold the stakes for that bet until it is settled.

-- Miserable SOB (misery@misery.com), June 04, 2001.

Actually Lay Down, what you really need to say is that you're goin to rip their fucking head off and shit down their throat. It makes you feel better when you say that!

-- Boswell (fundown@thefarm.net), June 04, 2001.

LN, you may be right in general about the Republican Party's ability to keep the ranks unbroken. However, they didn't do it too well in 1964. 8^)

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), June 04, 2001.

Lay Down,

"Now, if by chance you are one of the rare few that have not succumbed to the pleasures of chemical mood enhancement, I say to you…….boring."

Hell!!! We all thought you were the community puritan,now your an advocate for better living through chemistry?

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), June 04, 2001.

The problem with a president possibly having criminal drug use in his past is that he's supposed to uphold ridiculous laws requiring prison time for even recreational amounts.

And then there is this guy I know ... I'm not sure how much acid it took to make him behave this way ... when he got straight and became a white collar taxpayer with a mortgage, he had a little problem. If anyone happened to say "thank God" or "God willing", he went into an uncontrollable monologue involving certain deceased celebrities and their living children and how one day they would fly down from heaven and ...so on. His eyes looked sane-but-horrified and he would have to walk away. I saw him do this in front of two of his supervisors, so I'm sure he couldn't help it.

I've always wondered what it took to do that to him and then I wonder how much our leaders have enjoyed and then I wonder if that isn't where some of our law making comes from.

-- helen, one of those boring non-users (g@h.j), June 04, 2001.

not saying,

If BuzzFlash was so confident that this is true, they would not feel the need to add the disclaimer.

"I can't help but feel if this was the "dems" instead, you'd have no problem whatsoever believing any of it. "

This is why you should think objectively with your head rather than subjectively with your feelings. I have defended Clinton many times. I have voted for several "dems". I am very skeptical of slanderous hatchetjobs coming from either the Republicans or the Democrats. Am I safe to assume that if this was written about the "dems", you would be able to see that is nothing but mud-slinging?

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), June 04, 2001.

And then there's Al Gore's skeleton closet.

-- (Paracelsus@Pb.Au), June 04, 2001.

LOL -- you'd lose that bet "either". But what difference would it make? If I deny it, you could come back and say I'm lying. And if I was Patricia, why would I tell you? How about this; what would happen if I bet you were Old Git, who just happened to make a "guest appearance" on this thread? You know, old "outing" habits die hard. Would I win? Does it matter? See how pointless that was? Now give the stakes to MSOB; someone should get something out of this.

That can't be the real "Couch"; before the previous two, his posts had shown signs of intelligent life.

Dr. P.: My apologies; thought you were just another Bush cheerleader. I am quite skeptical of hatchetjobs by EITHER side. Politicians is politicians, whatever make and model. But we were discussing Bush; not Clinton, not Dems. And the major points made in this book have evidence to back them. The author was discredited based on ..... the Rove Spin Machine. Kind of like they did to McCain in SC back during the primaries. Do you know of any entity these days who DOESN'T put a disclaimer in somewhere? Considering our litigious society (and the underhanded tricks from the first publication), it would surprise me even more if they didn't.

Paracelsus: Love that site. Lots of speculation on the part of ALL those listed, but great site that raises alot of good issues. However, we were discussing Bush, not Gore. And if you want to see Bush's "skeletons", go here. You'll notice the page is ALOT longer than Gore's.

Funny how you have to turn it around; can't seem to address the points being made, can you? But since you brought it up, Gore never tried to get the site (ANY site about him) shut down. Gore never said "there ought to be limits to freedom" because bad things were being said and published about him. Gore's Daddy never had a book about him banned -- that I am aware of. If you know of any example of any of these, post the link.

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 05, 2001.

Not Saying, I am a Bush supporter. The funny thing is I couldn't stand him and was going to vote against him... until McCain entered the picture. As I listened to the two sparr, I was alarmed at the amount of lies McCain was spewing. He constantly contradicted himself. It was at that point that I decided to look at Bush more carefully, and over time found myself supporting him more and more.

Gore never said "there ought to be limits to freedom" because bad things were being said and published about him.

Can you show me where Bush actually said this. I hear it attributed to him alot, but I have seen no documentation that he actually said it.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), June 05, 2001.

Dr. P., the attribution is The Dallas Morning News. It appears that the site is still up; go here. Guess it wasn't "filled with libelous and untrue statements whose aim is to damage Governor Bush".

Like I said, politicians is politicians. They're all the same except for where the money and favors go (and even that doesn't really differ all that much). I think if you ban ALL campaign contributions, the playing field might level off considerably. I mean, don't you think it's a hoot that big companies will contribute a certain amount to one candidate, and then a certain amount to that candidate's opponent? No hedging one's bets there, huh? Wouldn't it be even funnier if these guys had to run on their merits alone? ROTFLMAO.....

-- (not.s@ying.now), June 05, 2001.

Saying "there ought to be limits to freedom," Gov. George W. Bush has filed a legal complaint against the owners of a Web site that lampoons his White House bid.

This article only qoutes part of the sentence. I wonder what Bush actually said, and what the context was.

-- Dr. Pibb (dr.pibb@zdnetonebox.com), June 06, 2001.

LN, "The real fascination is watching the party faithful turn on a dime and spout today's party line, no matter how much it contradicts yesterday's party line."

We (repub) have learned from the master of spin, lies and deception, oh grasshopper.

Actually I find the "turn around" on the dem side. Watching Daschle, as he spouted the party line with that stupid Lexus stunt and now with his kumbuya (or however you spell it) message, is purely fascinating.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 06, 2001.

I agree Maria. It was kind of a Dr. Jeckell-Mr. Hyde type thing. LOL!

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 06, 2001.

"We (repub) have learned from the master of spin, lies and deception, oh grasshopper."

That's, uh, got to be the, um, oddest 'defense' of the Republican, er, 'party line' I've read for some time, Maria. You might want to clear it with HQ.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 06, 2001.

That's the problem LN, Maria didn't clear it with the party. She is now getting ready to "visit" Jimmy Hoffa. We Republicans know how to handle troublemakers - that is why Jeffords got out while he still could. LOL!

-- jammy (jammin@with.jammy), June 06, 2001.

Pibb, you see that link up there to gwbush.com? Go there, at the top right you will find a link to the audio. Granted you have to turn it way up and probably play it a few times but there it is.

Glad to be of assistance :)

-- (bush@twofaced.scum), June 07, 2001.

LN should I be saying "Right On!"

"Defense of the party line?" You DO take yourself so seriously. LOL

Now the Hoffa comment was funny! Learn a little LN.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 07, 2001.