Bush snorted coke?

[Miulang]

Whoa! Hold on to your papales! According to da Sept. 27 issue of da National Enquirer , dey did one spesho investigating kine report dat wen go find proof dat Dubya wen go snort coke sometime befoa 1977 and dat prim lido Laura wen go smoke pakalolo! Dis stuff is revealed in a new book by Toby Rogers called Ambushed: Secrets of the Bush Family, the Stolen Presidency, 9-11 and 2004.

I not going give any moa details den dat. You guys just going have to wait until dis issue arrives on da shores of your fair 'aina in about 2 weeks.

One ting about da Enquirer. Dey one equal opportunity mudslinging kine outfit! Whereeva dere's dirt, dey going dig it up!

Miulang

[Glen Miyashiro]

Ho, you know those librarians. All prim and proper on the outside, but raging passionate drug fiends on the inside.

[Miulang]

Ho, you know those librarians. All prim and proper on the outside, but raging passionate drug fiends on the inside.

Yeah, just like one stealth fut...silent and hauna! :D

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

This stuff has been around for a long time. Kitty Kelley's new book asserts the same thing, so I don't know how the Enquirer could claim originality.

He's always claimed he was "young and irresponsible," so I guess this fits in there. I'd argue he's now middle-aged and worse than irresponsible, but that's just me.

[Miulang]

This stuff has been around for a long time. Kitty Kelley's new book asserts the same thing, so I don't know how the Enquirer could claim originality.

He's always claimed he was "young and irresponsible," so I guess this fits in there. I'd argue he's now middle-aged and worse than irresponsible, but that's just me.

Da Enquirer wen go say dat dat odda guy's new book plus some interviews adds additional information to what Kitty Kelly said befoa.

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

"Information wants to be free" :D

[Kalihiboy]

He snorted something in his wild and youthful days and as a result lost a few brain cells along the way.

Makiki Boy

[Karen]

He did, as did many of us in our wild pasts...(G)...and STILL he is tons better than his opponent, I mean does that guy have drugs to blame his inadequacies on, or is he just a loser?!

Can you say "President Bush" for four more years? Practice...:)

[Miulang]

He did, as did many of us in our wild pasts...(G)...and STILL he is tons better than his opponent, I mean does that guy have drugs to blame his inadequacies on, or is he just a loser?!

Can you say "President Bush" for four more years? Practice...:)
I can't say "President Bush---4 more years" with a straight face. But then, the prospect of having someone who looks like a bloodhound (Kerry) doesn't really float my boat either.

I'm in a dither about this coming election. Looks like Ma Nature is wreaking havoc (can you say payback?) on the state of FL and Bruddah Jebbie for delivering the state to Prez Bush. Our only hope if he gets elected is if Cheney is incapacitated by a heart attack again and has to resign and then the Speaker of the House (Dennis Hastert) would become Veep. Then if Hastert declines, the President pro tempore of the Senate (Ted Stevens, R.-AK) would be next in line. Now, you don't hear anything nasty about either Hastert or Stevens (yet), so maybe as heir apparent, one of them will be able to turn the country around. BTW: the last person who would be in line to the Presidency is now Tom Ridge, our Director of Homeland Security. Does that inspire confidence in our current regime????

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

Oh, I don't know. Hastert recently accused George Soros of making his money by dealing drugs with international cartels, so you can't say he's a shining beacon of reason and honesty either.

Soros has made his billions legally trading currencies, in case anyone wonders.

[Miulang]

Oh, I don't know. Hastert recently accused George Soros of making his money by dealing drugs with international cartels, so you can't say he's a shining beacon of reason and honesty either.

Soros has made his billions legally trading currencies, in case anyone wonders.

Heehee! Obviously Hastert didn't do his homework on that one. Is this going to be one of those "squid pro quo" thingies where the opposition is now going to start digging into Hastert's past to find out if he snorted glue as a kid?

Miulang

[Miulang]

Looks like Ma Nature is wreaking havoc (can you say payback?) on the state of FL and Bruddah Jebbie for delivering the state to Prez Bush.

Speaking of Bruddah Jebbie, did anyone else think it rather odd that he wasn't at the Republican National Convention???Guess there's no ohana in the Bush family. I mean, as the Gov. of FL, you'd think he'd at least have been there to show support for this bro. What was his excuse now? Oh yeah, something about pressing matters in the state . Yuh. I can't remember now, but had Hurricane Charley hit by then?

One other thing that irks me about our national government is the Electoral College. Is anyone keeping tabs on what's happening in Colorado? They actually are lobbying to divvy up the electoral college votes from that state(depending on the actual popular vote counts)? That makes a whole lot more sense to me than the current winner take all method used today. If all the states did that, there probably would never be another 2-headed Washington Mint silver coin commemorating the 2000 Presidential election (one side has Bush on it, and the other side has Gore on it...and I own two of those keepsakes!)

Ever since civics class in high school (this was on Maui, even) when we were required to attend a mock nominating convention (supposedly to teach us how government runs), I've been against the electoral college as it works today because it doesn't reflect the true voice of the people. Maybe Colorado and a few other states who are contemplating this change will force people to stop and think about our government and how it runs (or doesn't).

If we don't do something to fix our government, we might as well have a government that runs much like the one in Italy, where you have about 17 different political parties, each one with a head who's got to be at least 75 years old (I think that's a requirement of office :rolleyes: ). So they all sit around a biiiig table and vote on who the next Premier will be. When that person gets tired of being held responsible for running the government, he basically says to the other political parties, "I'm tired. Somebody else take over." So in the space of a few years, Italy can have a Socialist cabinet, a Socialist Democratic cabinet, etc. Hell, they even had a stripper ("La Cicciolina" as one of the elected officials!). My ex-pat Italian amici tell me that to them the national Italian government is a joke and whatever these guys decide doesn't really impact them on a day-to-day basis.

I'd still rather live in this country more than anywhere else, but some days it has me wishing for the saunas in Iceland! :D

Miulang

[Linkmeister]

Heehee! Obviously Hastert didn't do his homework on that one. Is this going to be one of those "squid pro quo" thingies where the opposition is now going to start digging into Hastert's past to find out if he snorted glue as a kid?

Miulang

One can only hope.

(Actually, since Soros has contributed about $10M to MoveOn.org he's become one of the Republican party's favorite whipping boys. If I'd been Hastert, though, I might have chosen an enemy other than a billionaire; Soros wrote a nasty four-paragraph letter to Hastert demanding an apology or face a suit for slander. Denny's been a little quite about Soros since then. Now, following Cheney's lead, he just makes stupid statements about terrorists preferring a Kerry victory. Personally, I'd love to know if Denny got that straight from Osama Been Forgotten; if so he's guilty of withholding information about a wanted criminal). :D

[Karen]

LOL Kerry's looks are the LEAST thing to worry about, should that loose cannon get into office, YIKES, his finger on "the button."

Let's see, there was ample proof that clinton snorted coke even as governor of Ark. & Bush reportedly snorted the stuff, what to make of this? No presidential candidate will ever have walked on water?

Actually, I am glad that GOP & Dem. alike, that there are some that have the guts to run for office even while having a wild past. Once our daughters are grown, who knows, I may run for some office myself, and I am glad I am a very teflon person, for anyone that thinks they're going to intimidate ME by bringing up MY past, should I enter public arena....has a shock coming to them. I'll tell all of my past before they get the chance, dates included, etc, stealing their thunder. I figure if I confess all of my sins in vivid detail, on that great judgement day with my maker, nobody'll be surprised, as they will have already heard it all before.

Nuttin matters but the present moment and where a person stands now. I have observed Kerry and Bush as much as I can, not knowing either personally, and Kerry remains a very plastic person, while Bush seems geniune.

I will feel safer typing "President Bush" for four more years, and am thankful that at this point, this is my expectation.


I can't say "President Bush---4 more years" with a straight face. But then, the prospect of having someone who looks like a bloodhound (Kerry) doesn't really float my boat either.

[Miulang]

Exactly my sentiments, Karen. What have either Bush or Kerry done for the country over the last 4 years? Not much, as far as I can tell, but get us into a war that we can't win (not the way the current administration thinks we can win it, that is) and a country that is reeling in economic woes (I blame Kerry for this as much as I do Bush).

Why can't there be a different candidate (and I'm not talking Nader here. He's overstayed his 15 minutes of fame) with new ideas, who can galvanize the country into moving in a new direction?

Everyone has his/her peccadillos and skeletons in the closet. But you know what makes it kind of sad? We used to hold our elected officials to a higher standard than for the common rabble. Now we've got adulterous ex-Presidents and former drug users and we accept this stuff and we casually poohpooh this stuff as "well everyone's done stuff like this too". Yes, people in political office are human and have foibles, and we maybe we should forgive their transgressions, but to forget these things? I don't think so.

Miulang

[Karen]

Goodmorning, gal!

As for the standards we hold for our elected officials, I don't see why someone's PAST bothers you. I say that as one that used to be a hellcat, and believes in the biblical devil because I think I've danced with him, etc. (G) My past is literally my PAST and should I have the ability and money to be high up in politics, this country would have one with very high morals and standards, is my point. My past shouldn't matter and I am not intimidated by any that know of it, for it is PAST, and has nothing to do wit me now, but memories.

Reagan had so many swing voters, was re-elected by landslide from both side because what you refer to was reality with him, he was respectable and brought honor to the office and the country. He was almost an accident, for seems there won't be another him, no more shining example of what we all should be, etc.

Clinton was scraping the bottom of the barrel, as most reports of him aren't even denied, that he got oral sex while hiding in his governor's limo even right after dropping his daughter off to school, he snorted coke and probably actually DID inhale the weed, etc. I think people voted for him for that sliminess of anything goes permeated his very aura, and people could sense it that had never met him, and.....sad commentary on this entire society and world that there are more people with low morals, than high, and voting for one like them makes them feel comfy and RIGHT about what they are. I mean cannibals elect cannibal kings....etc. to exaggerate the point.

About Bush and the war, I gotta tell ya that the fact that saddam's two maniacal sons are dead, and saddam is locked away where he can never bring instability to the region over there, and never choke off our needed oil is a big deal, and I really care about other people even if they are far from me, and saddam can never again torture his own people. He had even used WMDs on his own, reportedly, many years ago, and there were mass graves of thousands upon thousands, he sent a woman's husband home all cut up and in a bag, upon her pleading for having her hubby back, I mean saddam's own people have been through hell, so much good has been done in this war.
Our own troops that are there now were not forced, but they enlisted and they report that they are treated very well by the native Iraqis, taken into their private homes and fed, given jewelry, movies, flowers etc. as gifts....

Also, I do not share your grim assessment of our economy! Here in Hawaii, front page advertiser paper today, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, and my family in Texas doesn't report a bad economy there, either. This has all happened with four years of Bush, undeniably.

I don't care what Bush or Kerry did twenty years ago as much as what I see, hear from them, and even intuit from them NOW. Bush chose to stand on the GOP platform, and it is a very moral one, one I can sleep well with at night. I am thankful we should have Bush for four more years because of this platform. I don't see any knight in shining armor on the horizon, and I get much better vibes from Bush, than from the fake seeming Kerry, the one that talks out of all sides of his mouth.


Exactly my sentiments, Karen. What have either Bush or Kerry done for the country over the last 4 years? Not much, as far as I can tell, but get us into a war that we can't win (not the way the current administration thinks we can win it, that is) and a country that is reeling in economic woes (I blame Kerry for this as much as I do Bush).

Why can't there be a different candidate (and I'm not talking Nader here. He's overstayed his 15 minutes of fame) with new ideas, who can galvanize the country into moving in a new direction?

Everyone has his/her peccadillos and skeletons in the closet. But you know what makes it kind of sad? We used to hold our elected officials to a higher standard than for the common rabble. Now we've got adulterous ex-Presidents and former drug users and we accept this stuff and we casually poohpooh this stuff as "well everyone's done stuff like this too". Yes, people in political office are human and have foibles, and we maybe we should forgive their transgressions, but to forget these things? I don't think so.

Miulang

[Miulang]

I'm not talking about Saddam or even Iraq. I'm talking about the war on terrorism. Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda are far more dangerous than Saddam and his maniacal sons could ever dream of becoming.

Al Qaeda is all over the world (including this country). The war on terrorism is not relegated to one or two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). It's being fought in the Philippines, Indonesia, the Congo. It has no face because it is multinational and crosses all borders. If Bush and Rummie had been smart, they would have allowed the Christians in Action and whoever else it would take to hunt Osama down and get rid of him and his liutenants first. Unfortunately, aside from his family money, Osama is a refugee who eschews luxury for the sake of a cause and has no country to rule. Religious zealots, regardless of their flavor, are all dangerous.

It's pretty apparent to me that the reason we went after Saddam is because we needed Iraq's oil and because Saddam and his regime were easier to topple than the new Rommel (Osama) who can use his network of terrorists to do all kinds of damage all over the world.

We will not win the war on terrorism using conventional methods. The genocide in Sudan, the killing of the kids in Russia, the 2 Chechen women who bribed their way onto 2 Russian airliners and blew themselves up "for the cause"---this is the enemy.

Miulang

[Karen]

You are apparently forgetting the NUMEROUS, and I am not exaggerating, number of Al Queda officers that we have nabbed, or are dead, but mainly I think we got them. I have read about number two, number four, etc...top guys in that organization that we have. I hear people say that bin laden even needs dialysis and that if he is alive, we should have him because we can find out the places available to him to get it, but then I hear he may be in Pakistan, but clearly under Bush's watch, we have a lot of Al Qaeda officers. If you need proof, I can TRY....to get the time to research this online and give you a heads up on how many, but I hope you can recall them in the news now and then, for I know I have read online about it, but I admit at the times I have brushed it off, not giving credit where it is due....re: high ranking dudes in that horrible association.

Win the war on terror? is that even possible, or can we only hold back the tide of it? There are terrorists from so many countries, that I don't think anyone thinks we'll win the overall war. I don't know if you are a bible believer, but since I am I must say that the final battle called Armageddon surely will be the last great battle in the war on terror, and nothing less. It will include all of the terrorists against all good, honorable people of every country, race and creed. That's how I see it, anyway.




I'm not talking about Saddam or even Iraq. I'm talking about the war on terrorism. Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaeda are far more dangerous than Saddam and his maniacal sons could ever dream of becoming.

Al Qaeda is all over the world (including this country). The war on terrorism is not relegated to one or two countries (Iraq and Afghanistan). It's being fought in the Philippines, Indonesia, the Congo. It has no face because it is multinational and crosses all borders. If Bush and Rummie had been smart, they would have allowed the Christians in Action and whoever else it would take to hunt Osama down and get rid of him and his liutenants first. Unfortunately, aside from his family money, Osama is a refugee who eschews luxury for the sake of a cause and has no country to rule. Religious zealots, regardless of their flavor, are all dangerous.

It's pretty apparent to me that the reason we went after Saddam is because we needed Iraq's oil and because Saddam and his regime were easier to topple than the new Rommel (Osama) who can use his network of terrorists to do all kinds of damage all over the world.

We will not win the war on terrorism using conventional methods. The genocide in Sudan, the killing of the kids in Russia, the 2 Chechen women who bribed their way onto 2 Russian airliners and blew themselves up "for the cause"---this is the enemy.

Miulang

[Miulang]

You are apparently forgetting the NUMEROUS, and I am not exaggerating, number of Al Queda officers that we have nabbed, or are dead, but mainly I think we got them. I have read about number two, number four, etc...top guys in that organization that we have. I hear people say that bin laden even needs dialysis and that if he is alive, we should have him because we can find out the places available to him to get it, but then I hear he may be in Pakistan, but clearly under Bush's watch, we have a lot of Al Qaeda officers. If you need proof, I can TRY....to get the time to research this online and give you a heads up on how many, but I hope you can recall them in the news now and then, for I know I have read online about it, but I admit at the times I have brushed it off, not giving credit where it is due....re: high ranking dudes in that horrible association.

Win the war on terror? is that even possible, or can we only hold back the tide of it? There are terrorists from so many countries, that I don't think anyone thinks we'll win the overall war. I don't know if you are a bible believer, but since I am I must say that the final battle called Armageddon surely will be the last great battle in the war on terror, and nothing less. It will include all of the terrorists against all good, honorable people of every country, race and creed. That's how I see it, anyway.

Hi Karen:
I really respect your opinions and I really hope things have changed since 9/11. but please, do yourself a favor and read the official transcript of the 9/11 Commission (a bipartisan group) before you make up your mind about our ability to capture terrorists on our soil. The report is frightening and eye opening. It proves that the leadership of both the major political parties have long been too complacent about what's been going on away from US shores. The report (I've barely made a dent in it so far because it's--um--kinda pithy) should be required reading for any thoughtful American.

Miulang

BTW: If you really want to know what's going on objectively, don't rely on anything you hear or see in the US press. Thanks to the Internet, you can go to see any of hundreds of reports from news outlets outside the US. The US media have sold out to the President of the US; the reporting from Iraq and elsewhere on the major networks and cable networks has to be screened by the Defense Dept. before we see the clips and there is covert censorship going on in the printed media, too. I used to be a journalist and it fries me how wimpy today's newspeople are. They're too lazy to do their own research and rely on things being spun by the Government. Jeez. There is almost no free speech anymore.