God Rigs Election: It's Bush In A "blowout"

[shereads]

Cheney's favorite leak
The vice president hails an "inaccurate" leak and provokes a new battle in the White House war with the intelligence community.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Eric Boehlert



Jan. 27, 2004 _|_ Vice President Dick Cheney's claim that a magazine article, based on leaked and unevaluated intelligence, definitively proved links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden has triggered a new round in the Bush administration's conflict with the intelligence community.

"It's disgusting," said Vincent Cannistraro, the former CIA chief of counterterrorism. "It's bullshit," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst who served in the agency's Near East division.

Cheney's touting of the leak was also condemned by Democratic presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark, who demanded an internal White House investigation into whether Cheney violated national security laws by appearing to confirm the contents of the article, which reprinted classified information.

The conservative Weekly Standard published its article on the Saddam-al-Qaida connection, "Case Closed," by Stephen Hayes, in its Nov. 24, 2003, issue. The piece, released on Nov. 14, was instantly promoted as providing proof for the Bush administration's assertion that Saddam was long involved with Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization. Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes trumpeted the article on Fox News. "These are hard facts, and I'd like to see [skeptics] refute any one of them," he said.

But the Department of Defense did just that. On Nov. 15, the next day, the Pentagon issued an extraordinary statement calling the story "inaccurate" and explaining it was based on raw intelligence (or a "classified annex") that had not been evaluated. "The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions."

In the strongest possible terms the Pentagon condemned the leak: "Individuals who purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal."

The assertion that Saddam and al-Qaida were in league was a major justification for the Iraq war. Indeed, a majority of Americans came to believe the alliance was real as a result of the administration's persistent suggestion that Saddam was behind 9/11, and it was the reason they gave for supporting the war.

However, no proof was ever offered, and the administration's continuing effort to press the point led the press corps to question President Bush about it. "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," Bush said on Nov. 18, 2003. But he added, "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11" attacks.

Yet on Jan. 9, Cheney, in an interview with the Rocky Mountain News, spontaneously lauded the discredited Weekly Standard article and described it as "the best source of information."

On this Sunday's "Meet the Press" on NBC, Clark criticized Cheney's comments as "playing politics with national security." James Rubin, Clark's senior foreign policy advisor and a former assistant secretary of state for public affairs in the Clinton administration, said that "the vice president at a minimum should retract his comments." He added: "The president ought to call in Vice President Cheney and his legal counsel and look into the matter and determine how much damage has been done."

Cheney's remarks about the Weekly Standard article, particularly in light of the Pentagon's firm and public denunciation, angered former intelligence experts. "I just can't find words to describe how horrible it is," says Cannistraro. "For the vice president to undercut the head of intelligence at the Pentagon is unparalleled. It just illustrates the peculiar worldview Cheney has and how distorted it is. And it shows there's a real contempt for the professional intelligence community."

Intelligence professionals are particularly offended by what they see as Cheney's attempt to deliberately mislead and mischaracterize the article. In particular they point to his reference to the leaked information as an "assessment" as though it had been evaluated and judged to be creditable. "That was no assessment. It was a roundup of [unsubstantiated] reports," says McGovern, a steering group member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which has been critical of the Bush administration's handling of intelligence. "To call that an assessment is a joke and disavows what the Department of Defense said, for God's sake."

The fury surrounding Cheney's comments and the rationale for war come in the wake of former U.S. weapons inspector David Kay's comments on Friday that he now doubts Saddam Hussein had a stockpile of WMD, as the administration had insisted before the war last year. Meanwhile, recent reports from the National War College and the Carnegie Endowment have cast serious doubts on administration claims that Iraq posed an imminent threat.

Throughout the debate about the Iraq war, Cheney has presented himself as a guardian of national security and an enemy of intelligence leaks. But his praise for the Weekly Standard article sharply contrasts with his disapproval of a leak in June 2002 -- a leak that seriously embarrassed the administration and called attention to an intelligence failure under its own watch. At the time, CNN reported that the National Security Agency had failed to translate in time two intercepts on Sept. 10, 2001, which noted that "tomorrow is the zero hour" and "the match is about to begin." The intercepts were translated from Arabic on Sept. 12. CNN had reported that the leak came from two congressional sources.

Cheney personally telephoned the chairmen of the joint congressional inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks, Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., and Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., to denounce the leaks. Soon, a criminal investigation was launched, with FBI agents administering polygraph exams to congressional staffers. At the time, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer complained, "The selective, inappropriate leaking of snippets of information risks undermining national security."

But the target of that leak investigation has turned on a subject the Bush administration did not expect -- Sen. Richard Shelby, a Republican from Alabama, who was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at the time of the disclosure.

 

[shereads]

Surest way to the truth: involve God's spokesman

Joe Conason's Journal
Americans are now supposed to entrust Republican Sen. Pat Roberts with determining why we were misled to war. That would be easier if he weren't a pliable partisan hack whose tether to reality seems rather badly frayed.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Jan. 29, 2004 _|_ Senate intelligence and other illusions
Exposed by David Kay's failure to find banned weapons in Iraq, the White House and its friends on Capitol Hill are busily fabricating new illusions to hide behind. Assisted by Kay himself, the Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee now pretend that the president, the vice president, the national security advisor and the secretaries of state and defense were innocently misled by "bad intelligence" -- as if that canard absolves them of responsibility for declaring that America had no choice except war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

But how can anyone take seriously the conclusions of a committee run by a politician as deluded (or dishonest) as Sen. Pat Roberts? On Sunday, the Kansas Republican turned the phrase "Senate intelligence" into an oxymoron. On CNN's "Late Edition," Wolf Blitzer asked Roberts to respond to Kay's admission that Saddam's legendary chemical, biological and nuclear arsenal had vanished sometime during the past decade. Blitzer wondered aloud whether the Iraqis might, in fact, have told the truth about their vanished arsenal.


"If, in fact, he didn't have them," Roberts replied, "why on earth didn't he let the U.N. inspectors in and avoid the war? That is a real puzzlement to me." Assuming that he isn't just a bold liar, Roberts must be the type who finds himself dazed and confused by events that simply never happened. Does his ludicrous revision of recent history sound familiar? It's the same bizarre falsehood uttered by the president on Tuesday afternoon. For some reason, Blitzer allowed it to pass without comment.

Now Americans are supposed to entrust Roberts with determining how and why we were misled to war. We are asked to accept his judgment about the comparative culpability of the CIA, the White House, and the highest officials of the Bush administration. That would be easier if he weren't a pliable partisan hack whose tether to reality seems rather badly frayed.

Anyone who prefers confronting realities instead of concealing them can consult this catalog { http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889 }of references compiled by the Center for American Progress -- which lays out evidence that the White House distorted intelligence to suit the invasion agenda.

The Bush administration was repeatedly warned by CIA, Defense Department and State Department intelligence analysts, by U.N. agencies, and also by some foreign intelligence services that the data on Iraq was questionable at best. Administration officials were warned repeatedly that they were wildly exaggerating the scant evidence of a renewed nuclear weapons program. They were told that the mobile weapons labs were no such thing; that the unmanned aerial vehicles weren't weapons; that the aluminum tubes weren't designed for enriching uranium; that the Niger uranium tale was a forgery and a hoax; and that there was no proof of Iraqi connections with al-Qaida.

Would we have gone to war if the nation's highest officials had told the truth? Would war have been justified to extirpate "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities"? Perhaps someday the president and his crew will address those questions.
[3:30 p.m. PST, Jan. 29, 2004]

 

[Somme]

six of one?

Thursday, January 22nd, 2004
Skull & Bones: The Secret Society That Unites John Kerry and President Bush

Listen to: Segment || Show
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A little-known fact unites Democratic frontrunner John Kerry and President Bush: they are both members of Yale's secret society Skull and Bones. We speak with the author of "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power" that reveals details about the secret society and its members. [includes transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Hampshire primary is just a few days away and Howard Dean's status as the frontrunner has almost totally dissipated. The latest Boston Herald poll now shows that John Kerry holds a 10 point lead - a major surge for the Massachusetts Senator. Still reeling from his victory in Iowa, Kerry is starting to act like the frontrunner, shifting his focus from comparing himself to the other Democrats to putting his record up against President George W. Bush, saying he is the only candidate who can beat Bush and who represents a real difference from the current occupant of the White House.
But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any of the other candidates. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University - Skull and Bones. This fact has not been widely reported but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry."


Alexandra Robbins, is the New York Times bestselling author of Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League, and the Hidden Paths of Power who was formerly on the Washington, DC staff of The New Yorker magazine. She is a 1998 graduate of Yale and was the first reporter to publish George W Bush's transcript from Yale when he was a student there.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge, however donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to and watching Democracy Now, the War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman with Juan Gonzalez.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Welcome to all of our listeners and viewers around the country. The New Hampshire primary is just a few days away, and Howard Dean's status as a frontrunner has almost totally dissipated. The latest "Boston Herald" poll now shows that John Kerry holds a 10-point lead, a major surge for the Massachusetts senator. Still reeling from his victory in Iowa, Kerry is starting to act like the frontrunner, shifting his focus from comparing himself to the other Democrats to putting his record up against President George Bush, saying he's the only candidate who can beat Bush and who represents a real difference from the current occupant of the White House.

AMY GOODMAN: But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any other candidate. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University. It's called “Skull and Bones.” This fact has not been widely reported, but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, quote, “John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.” In a moment, we'll be joined by Alexandra Robbins, the “New York Times" best-selling author of, "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, the Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power." But first, we turn to an interview that I did with Kevin Phillips, the author of “American Dynasty, Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics Of Deceit in the House of Bush." When I asked him about the significance of that Yale secret society, Skull and Bones.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I hate to overdo the secret societies because the average person has no idea of this. I went to Harvard Law School, and Harvard has these secret societies, too, but the ones at Yale, I think, if anything are more influential, and it's sorta hard to cold turkey right in and say, my god, Skull and Bones, this is virtually like a diplomatic or international business piracy. You can almost see the pirate flag, but they all take it very seriously, because Admiral Harriman, instead of going to Harvard and getting involved in the “Porks,” so to speak, which was the big club up at Harvard, he went to Yale and did Skull and Bones. There was a crowd of people who were involved in operations like National CitiBank and Guaranteed Trust and just a whole lot of people who were major players in finance were Skull and Bones. And the crowd that was at W.S. Harriman was full of Skull and Bones people, and Prescott Bush was Skull and Bones. A lot of these people who were Skull and Bones wound up in the intelligence services, or they were assistant secretaries for aviation and the war department and things like this. It was a whole network.

AMY GOODMAN: But for people who don't know what Skull and Bones is, what you are referring to.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: It's a Yale secret society. Yale has other secret societies. Another one was called “Book and Snake.” So, they came up with these names. But these people took secrecy incredibly seriously. Books that have been written about Skull and Bones - they’ve got a vault at Yale. Nobody is supposed to be able to get in there. You can’t even tell your wife about Skull and Bones. Avril Harriman, his wife received a letter that was in hieroglyphics, and she didn't know what to make of this and Avril Harriman said, “Well, that's Skull and Bones, and I have to tell you about that, and he said, no, I can't tell you about that.” If you want to know why they deal in secrecy, (a) you have Skull and Bones, and (b) so many of them were in the intelligence services and that whole side of Washington and New York.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about that, the beginning of intelligence, and how the Bush family fits into the beginning of the intelligence agencies?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, this gets complicated because nobody quite agrees when the intelligence agencies started. But Yale was front and center, because the statue that's in front of the C.I.A. is Nathan Hale. Nathan Hale's statue that they copied that from appears in front of Connecticut Hall at Yale in New Haven. So, if you go back to the revolution you have Yale and the Secret Service.

AMY GOODMAN: It goes back to Andover where Bush went as well.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Andover was really in the thick of this sort of stuff. They had a secret society sort of junior grade where you practiced to be at Skull and Bones at Yale when you were in Andover. It sounds like a joke today, but it wasn't then. What happened was the crowd that was in with Prescott Bush and George H. Walker at W.A. Harriman, a number of them became prominent in the intelligence community and then when you get to the firm that was merged out of W.A. Harriman, which was Brown Brothers Harriman, one of the partners there was Robert A. Lovett, who was the son of one of the big cheeses in Harriman's railroad operation, which is how they knew George H. -- I mean, it all fits together. Robert A. Lovett was the man who came up with the blueprint for the C.I.A. after World War II, which was never acknowledged and only became public knowledge maybe 15, 20 years ago. So, he was a major player, and Prescott Bush, I have no doubt, was very close to the intelligence agencies. During World War II he was a director of two companies. One was Dresser Industries, which is now part of Halliburton, and the second is Vanadium Corporation of America. They were both involved in atomic energy projects. Prescott Bush was a friend of Alan Dulles who went on to be the C.I.A. Director, but he was also a lawyer during the 30's for some of Brown Brothers Harriman international gamesmanship, so to speak. So, they were very tightly knit into all of this. And the real thing about the Bushes is how far back they go in this loose combination of investment banking, Wall Street law, the intelligence community, international business, the State Department, and the War Department.

AMY GOODMAN: That is Kevin Phillips. He is author of the new book, "American Dynasty, Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics Of Deceit In The House of Bush." As we turn now to Alexandra Robbins, the "New York Times" best-selling author of the book, "Secrets of the Tomb -- Skull and Bones, the Ivory League and the Hidden Paths Of Power," who was formerly on the Washington, D.C. staff of the New Yorker Magazine. She is a 1998 graduate of Yale University and was the first reporter to publish George W. Bush's transcript from Yale when he was a student there. We welcome you to Democracy Now!.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Good Morning.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. Juan.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Thanks for having me.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Alexandra, I’d like to start out - in your book, you mention John Kerry several times. For those folks who might think this is something of the college days and in the 60's when Kerry was at Yale, but you mentioned an experience that Jacob Weissberg, the editor of "Slate" magazine had about 20 years later in 1986. Can you talk a little bit about that.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Sure. Skull and Bones is really much more than a college club. In fact the year that the members spend in it, their senior year at Yale (there are 15 members tapped for Skull and Bones membership each year) is really just the beginning. Skull and Bones is a powerful alumni network, perhaps the most elite network in the country and it really focuses on life after college. What Kerry did was he tried to recruit Jacob Weissberg from his senate office in Washington to become a member of Skull and Bones. And Weissberg ended up declining the invitation, but he was shocked that Kerry was a member of the society, which so clearly exhibited a history of misogyny, and he challenged Kerry on it. Kerry sort of blew him off. He said, “Oh, well, you know, you should look at my record - for women, defending battered women, et cetera,” and Weissberg said “I can’t be a part of this,” but he was shocked that Kerry would have his secretary call Weissberg into his office in the senate in order to try to make this recruiting possible.

AMY GOODMAN: Could you actually explain that, the fact that he was an intern at the "New Republic," and he got this call, what this meant to him?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Yeah. He got a call from Senator Kerry's office, from his secretary, and Weissberg was spending the semester away from Yale. He was spending it, his junior year in Washington. And he got the call, and the secretary said, “Senator Kerry would like to meet with you tomorrow morning.” And all sorts of things are going through Weissberg's head. He was thinking, oh, maybe he likes my writing, maybe he's going to give me a scoop. He said, “Okay, I'll be there, do you know what it's about.” The secretary said, “No, he wouldn't tell me.” He gets there the next morning, about 8:30, I think. And he's sitting in the senator's office and the senator is kind of schmoozing him and making small talk and Weissberg is wondering why (I guess he’s about 20 or 21 by then), why he is sitting in Senator Kerry's office and Kerry said, Kerry brought up Skull and Bones. Weissberg didn't know that Kerry was a member at that point.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You mentioned the organization's relationship to women. For those of our viewers who don't know about that, could you explain that -- the history of that relationship.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Skull and Bones has been an all-male group, was an all-male group beginning in 1832 when it started, up until 1991. And what happened was there was basically a 20-year fight between the younger members of Skull and Bones and the older more staunch old blue members. In 1991, the seniors in Bones, these are the 22-year-olds who were actually in the Tomb that year at Yale, (the Tomb is the name of their building, by the way) in 1991, the Bones seniors intended to tap women, but the alumni of the society heard about the plan, changed the locks of the Tomb and threatened to shut down the society completely. When the seniors threatened a lawsuit, Bones held a vote that narrowly endorsed admitting women, the day before initiation a group of Bonesmen led by William F. Buckley obtained a court order blocking the initiation. The group claimed that admitting women would lead to (and I’m quoting here) “date rape in the medium term future.” Eventually, Bones held a second vote that again narrowly admitted women. Both Bushes have refused to disclose which way they voted. Senator Kerry and former Senator David Born both said they voted to admit women. Once the women were initiated, several of the older members, including a former congressman who I spoke with, distanced themselves from the society.

JUAN GONZALEZ: What about George Bush on this issue? Have we ever found out how he voted on this defining moment?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: No. Both Bushes have not disclosed the way they voted.

AMY GOODMAN: Although Bush was quoted as saying, and this was George Herbert Walker Bush, is that right, saying that women would be the downfall of Yale?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That's George W. Bush.

AMY GOODMAN: George W.?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: George W. said in the 1980's, that -- to a woman who was a graduate of Yale -- that women would be the downfall of Yale. There are many other instances, some of which I point out in my book, that lead to -- lead one to assume that he voted against admitting women.

AMY GOODMAN: We just heard Kevin Phillips give us kind of a chronology of people who are in Skull and Bones, and its significance in the U.S. establishment, for example, in the founding of the Central Intelligence Agency, with Robert Lovett. Can you talk more about this, for those who would say, come on as Juan was saying before, you are talking about some college club.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Yeah. I actually want to back way up and talk about, at least as mention exactly what Skull and Bones is, because while some people on the East Coast have heard about the society, other people across the country have no idea that we are looking right now if the polls are correct, at what would be the first Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones presidential election. That's pretty weird. Skull and Bones is America's most powerful secret society. It's based at Yale, where it's headquartered in a building called the Tomb, and Skull and Bones has included among its members, presidents, including presidents George W. Bush and his father, as well as William Howard Taft, Supreme Court Chief Justices, C.I.A. officials, cabinet members, congressmen and senators. What makes it so staggering that we could have a Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones, Kerry versus Bush election is that this is a tiny tiny club. There are only 800 living members. Only 15 per year. It's staggering that two of them could be facing off for the presidency and so many of them have achieved positions of prominence. One of the interesting and I think disturbing things about Skull and Bones is that its purpose is to get members into positions of power and have those members hire other members into prestigious positions. This is something we have seen with George W. Bush since his ascendancy to the presidency, he has put several Bones members into prestigious positions, such as Bill Donaldson, the head of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The number two and number three guys in the Justice Department, the guy that puts out all of Bush's secrecy memos. His assistant Attorney General is a major Bonesman. Bonesman Frederick Smith was Bush's top choice for Secretary of Defense until he had to withdraw for health reasons. The general council of the Office of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Defense’s representative to Europe. The list goes on and on and on. That's something that's interesting, because George W. Bush likes to feign his distance from Yale, from Bones, from Northeastern establishment elite connections, and yet he's going ahead and following Skull and Bones to the letter.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And besides seeking to employ or promote Bonesmen, is there any other responsibility that Bonesmen are supposed to have to each other?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Well, there's loyalty of course, to each other. They're supposed to call each other up. I revealed the code words in my book, so I assume they have since changed them, but it used to be, “Do you know General Russell. General Russell was the founder of Skull and Bones. All a Bonesman had to do was call up another Bonesman, maybe even if they have never met, and they would cough up money or connections or a plan.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to break for 60 seconds, but Alexandra, if you could stay with us just for a few more minutes?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Sure.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to find out that very special number that many Bonesmen use, maybe even John Kerry, and also about your own membership in a secret society in Yale.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Okay.

AMY GOODMAN: Stay with us.

AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Alexandra Robbins. Her book is, "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, The Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power.” Alexandra Robbins, the number.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That would be 322.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain the significance of that.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Okay. So, according to Skull and Bones lore, and this is something that both Senator Kerry and president bush would have learned, in 322 B.C., a Greek orator died. When he died, the goddess Eulogia, the goddess, whom Skull and Bones called the goddess of eloquence, arose to the heavens and didn't happen to come back down until 1832, when she happened to take up residence in the tomb of Skull and Bones. Now Skull and Bones does everything in deference to this goddess. They have songs or they call them that sacred anthems that they sing when they are encouraged to steal things, some remarkably valuable items, supposedly, they are said to be bringing back gifts to the goddess. They begin each session in the tomb, and they meet twice weekly by unveiling a sort of a guilt shrine to Eulogia. That's the point of the society. They call themselves the Knights of Eulogia. That's where the 322 comes in.

JUAN GONZALEZ: John Kerry, in terms of the number 322.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: I spoke with somebody close to Kerry, a member of Skull and Bones. He said that Kerry actually uses 322 as a code in his daily life.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about how some people use it as the extension of their phone and other passwords. Alexandra Robbins, you, too, are a member of a secret society at Yale. Can you explain what that is?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Sure. I was a member. Ever since “Secrets of the Tomb” came out, I cannot get members of my own society to talk to me. I believe that means I’m out. Which is okay, because you only joined it for the free alcohol in the first place. The society is called. Scroll and Key, the second oldest society at Yale. It was helpful for me to tell the Bonesmen whom I interviewed, I interviewed more than 100, that I was a member of Scroll and Key. They assumed that it has a similarly prestigious roster, although no presidents, that I would be able to put their information in context and align with them in their views towards secret societies, which of course, I didn't. I don't believe these kinds of secret societies have a place in this country or world unless they have value to the community. And Skull and Bones stands out as, I believe, the one Yale secret society that doesn't do anything for the community or for any other entity other than itself.

AMY GOODMAN: Why was John Kerry recruited?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That’s a good question. I could go look up his Skull and Bones bio, but they basically choose people who they -- whom they believe will reflect honor and prestige back on the society. They are basically trying to figure out, okay, who is the who's who here of the Yale junior class who is going to be the most successful. One other thing interesting about Kerry that I wanted to mention is that both of his wives have been directly related to members of Skull and Bones. A sister and daughter which is another connection to Skull and Bones that people don't usually know about.

AMY GOODMAN: Alexandra Robbins, our guest, “Secrets of the Tomb” is her book. What about the induction ritual.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: That's a weird one. It's sort of a cross between Harry Potter novel and a haunted house. The heart of the initiation is a ceremony that takes place in Skull and Bones’ most secret room which now we know is probably called -- well, you would think it probably is, I can tell that you it definitely is called room 322. It's also called the Inner Temple. I did get a hold of the script for initiation. I lay that out in my book. But to give you a little teaser, there is somebody dressed as the devil, somebody dressed as Don Quixote, somebody who is dressed as a pope who has one foot sheathed in a monogrammed white slipper resting on a skull, and the other knights are dress as alumni or patriarchs. In part of that ceremony, the neophytes must kiss the pope's foot, drink quote, unquote, blood from the eurich, which is a skull container and the initiation ends when the initiator is shoved to his knees in front of Don Quixote as the shrieking crowd falls silence and Quixote taps the junior on the shoulder with a sword and he says, “By order of our order, I dub you the knight of Eulogia.”

JUAN GONZALEZ: One of the articles you wrote elicited a direct response and maybe a threat?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: When I wrote the first article for "Atlantic Monthly," I dismissed Bones as a harmless organization, because my secret society didn't have the power agenda, so I didn't think that Bones did either. After the article came out, I got a call at my office from the New Yorker from a journalist whom I knew by name to be a member of Skull and Bones. He scolded me for writing the article. He said, I’m quoting, “Writing that article was not an ethical or honorable way to make a decent living in journalism.” He asked me how much I had been paid for the story. I refused to tell him and he hung up on me. 15 minutes later, he called back. He says, "I have just gotten off the phone with our people." I laughed. I knew he meant other Bonesmen because I didn't think somebody would actually say our people. He told me that the society demanded to know where I got my information. I wouldn't tell him, of course, and then he spent the next 15 minutes or so, berating me for writing about Skull and Bones for having the gall to expose thing about his secret society. He ended the conversation by saying, “There are a lot of us at newspapers and political journalism institutions across the country. Good luck with your career.” He slammed down the phone. I was 23 then. I was an aspiring investigative reporter, so that did shake me a little bit, but what really appalled me was that I found out since that in the years since that call, this guy has been actively going out and trying to destroy my career as a journalist, simply because I wrote about Skull and Bones.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, would you like to let us know who he is?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: I wish I could. Don't want to give him any fodder.

AMY GOODMAN: It’s interesting. At the beginning of this segment we quoted Kerry’s campaign spokesperson and she is quoted in the "Boston Globe" saying, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry." We're used to politicians declining to speak about something. That's no problem, but it sort of gives new meaning to or new meaning behind what she is saying.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: If this turns out to be a Skull and Bones versus Skull and Bones election. I guarantee people across the country are going to clamor for more information on the secret society. I think this is the point of my book and probably the point of your program, too. I don't think that the elected officials who represent our country especially the president should be allowed to have an allegiance to any secret group. Secrecy overshadows democracy. We need a transparency so we can hold elected officials accountable. I don't think its coincidence that I what I would call the most secretive government in America today since the Nixon era is run by the world's most infamous secret society. That's something we want to avoid in the future.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You mentioned that -- or the caller mentioned there were many journalists who were members of Skull and Bones. It would be interesting to perhaps keep track of the journalists who are, and how they're covering the current presidential race and analyze their coverage of both Kerry and Bush.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: There are a slew who are members of Skull and Bones, and some of them are biased. Some of them are not. Dana Milbank of the "Washington Post" is certainly not a biased journalist. He doesn't hold allegiance to his Skull and Bones connections, which is nice. There are others who follow their profession more than the society, but you will get people in Skull and Bones who favor Skull and Bones. That's the point of the group.

AMY GOODMAN: Who are the other reporters who are Skull and Bones?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: There's a list of them going back to Henry Lucent in New Haven. There are the founders of "Time" magazine. "Time" and "Newsweek" have Skull and Bones origins, which is kind of strange.

AMY GOODMAN: Who else?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: I could give you the list, but I think I will hold off.

AMY GOODMAN: When it comes to, you know, who are Skull and Bones, and who covers this issue, what kind of coverage has the john Kerry connection to Skull and Bones gotten? George w. Bush and George Bush Sr., we -- that has been covered somewhat.

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: Little to none. And when people have tried to ask him about it, he clams up. I heard this second hand. I didn't actually watch the show myself. I don't know how reliably to take this, but somebody told me that Kerry was asked by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" directly about Skull and Bones, and according to the person who saw this he said, Kerry looked like he was about to pass out. He wouldn't say a word. People don't think much about Kerry and Bones. I think partly because for George W. Bush, his Skull and Bones connections sort of work with the whole theory that he's riding his father's coattails and that he has gotten his way in life because of his connections, which I would agree with, and which I have traced in secrets of the tomb, to align closely with his Skull and Bones connections. He turned to Skull and Bones throughout his career for help. Even his Rangers deal, which is supposed to be the one thing he achieved on his own, had at least one Bonesman involved. Kerry has not relied on Skull and Bones. He hasn't made it a huge part of his life in terms of something that would boost his career or really put the -- propel him although he has turned to Skull and Bones in his personal life. But Kerry has been just as involved as Bush, I think. Although he will be as quick to deny that as the president will.

AMY GOODMAN: Does it matter to Skull and Bones who wins this presidential race?

ALEXANDRA ROBBINS: No. That's a good question and one that I asked many Bonesmen and the way they describe it is a win-win situation. As long as there's a Bonesman in the White House there are going to be many more Bonesmen in the administration.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for joining us. Alexandra Robbins has been our guest. Her book is "Secrets of the Tomb: Skull and Bones, The Ivy League and the Hidden Paths of Power.” Alexandra Robbins, a member of another Yale secret society, or at least she was, and also worked for the "New Yorker" magazine among other publications.





http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/23/0445212

 

[KenJames]

Re: six of one?

Thursday, January 22nd, 2004
Skull & Bones: The Secret Society That Unites John Kerry and President Bush

Interesting but not surprising. People in politics and business have belonged to secret societies like the Masons for centuries for the networking.

Membership in Skull and Bones doesn't make John Kerry as bad as Bush.

One of the last statements in the article is "Kerry has not relied on Skull and Bones. He hasn't made it a huge part of his life in terms of something that would boost his career or really put the -- propel him although he has turned to Skull and Bones in his personal life." Bush has used his connections for everything.

 

[shereads]

I've heard about the Skull & Bones society. Based on what I remember of college boys, I wonder if it isn't just a bunch of frat boys, puking. With the key difference being, they hurl single-malt scotch instead of Everclear grain alcohol mixed with Hawaiian Punch.

They probably love knowing that people find them mysterious and fear their omnipotence. Probably a lot of Beavis & Butthead-style snickers when someone says "omnipotent."

 

[minsue]

Who do I vote for??

It's too much pressure. I vote tomorrow in the Democratic Primary & I still have no idea who I'm voting for. I was leaning towards Edwards, but he hasn't come sucking up around here once that I recall. I'm not sure how I feel about a politician that doesn't grovel for my vote.

Help!

The options are (in ballot order):

LaROUCHE, LYNDON
PENNA, FERN
BRAND, KEITH
MUHAMMAD, HUDA
WYATT, BILL
CAPLETTE, RAY
BRAUN, CAROL MOSELEY
SHARPTON, AL
CLARK, WESLEY K
KUCINICH, DENNIS J
EDWARDS, JOHN
VITULLO, EVELYN L
BARKER, DIANNE
GEPHARDT, DICK
BARCHILON, WILLIAM
KERRY, JOHN F
DEAN, HOWARD
LIEBERMAN, JOE

I'm guessing it's as easy to run for your party's presidential nomination in AZ as it is to run for Gov in CA. So what do I do? Close my eyes & point?

- Mindy, voting for "anyone but Bush"

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Who do I vote for??

It's too much pressure. I vote tomorrow in the Democratic Primary & I still have no idea who I'm voting for. I was leaning towards Edwards, but he hasn't come sucking up around here once that I recall. I'm not sure how I feel about a politician that doesn't grovel for my vote.

Help!

The options are (in ballot order):

LaROUCHE, LYNDON
PENNA, FERN
BRAND, KEITH
MUHAMMAD, HUDA
WYATT, BILL
CAPLETTE, RAY
BRAUN, CAROL MOSELEY
SHARPTON, AL
CLARK, WESLEY K
KUCINICH, DENNIS J
EDWARDS, JOHN
VITULLO, EVELYN L
BARKER, DIANNE
GEPHARDT, DICK
BARCHILON, WILLIAM
KERRY, JOHN F
DEAN, HOWARD
LIEBERMAN, JOE

I'm guessing it's as easy to run for your party's presidential nomination in AZ as it is to run for Gov in CA. So what do I do? Close my eyes & point?

- Mindy, voting for "anyone but Bush"

instead of closing eyes and pointing, i'd throw a wrench in the works and vote for the one with the 'least' or the 'flattest' hair.

-E

 

[KenJames]

Re: Who do I vote for??

It's too much pressure. I vote tomorrow in the Democratic Primary & I still have no idea who I'm voting for. I was leaning towards Edwards, but he hasn't come sucking up around here once that I recall. I'm not sure how I feel about a politician that doesn't grovel for my vote.

Help!

. . .

I'm guessing it's as easy to run for your party's presidential nomination in AZ as it is to run for Gov in CA. So what do I do? Close my eyes & point?

- Mindy, voting for "anyone but Bush"

If it helps any, my current dream ticket is John Kerry for President (Northerner, real Vietnam hero, patrician) and John Edwards for VP (Southerner, common man, likeable).

I really feel the country is in a flat spin (worse than a tailspin) and Bush has spent four years in the cockpit, smashing controls. Kerry and Edwards together have the best chance of beating Bush and pulling us out.

 

[shereads]

Having started a thread in honor of Ken James' "dream ticket," I was saddened but not surprised to read this news in today's Onion:

Democrats Somehow Lose Primaries

WASHINGTON, DC—In a surprising last-minute upset, all seven Democratic presidential hopefuls somehow lost the Democratic primaries Tuesday.

"While it's true that the Democratic Party has been struggling to find a strong voice, you can imagine our surprise when results indicated that John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards all failed to carry a single primary," American Research Group political analyst Dick Bennett said late Tuesday. "Oh, and Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, too."

Primaries were held in Delaware, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, with no single Democratic candidate coming in higher than second place.

Experts are still unsure exactly how Kerry, whom many considered the frontrunner after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, lost to, and along with, every other Democratic candidate.

"Given our standing going into Tuesday, we were surprised not to take at least one state," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said. "But, in all honesty, we were a hell of a lot more baffled that none of the other Democratic candidates won, either."

Aggregate results from the five states, with all districts reporting, show Kerry leading the other candidates, but at a distant second.

"We're going to keep fighting," Kerry said. "I'm not going to throw in the towel just because I have no idea how it is even remotely possible for all of us to lose our own primary."

"I didn't give up in Vietnam, and I won't give up here," Kerry added.

Dean shared Kerry's mixture of confusion and resolve.

"I'd like to thank everyone who worked so hard on my campaign," Dean said. "I'll need your continued support as we go to Michigan, to Washington, to Maine... With your help, I know this campaign, or one of the Democratic campaigns, can take those primaries."

After polls closed Tuesday evening, Democratic Party officials were ready to concede defeat, but no one was sure to whom the concession call should be made.

"Well, we certainly can't blame this one on the Republicans," Democratic National Convention head Terry McAuliffe said. "I guess we have to blame the candidates? Organizers like myself? Negative campaigning? The media?"

McAuliffe said candidates will have to consider how it will look to Americans that Democrats lost in a voting situation where only Democrats were on the ballot.
"While we weren't sure who would win in November, our party really thought we had this one in the bag," McAuliffe said. "But we're not a group that puts its tail between its legs and runs. There's still time to get the message out there: Vote Democrat for Democrat."

Several pundits have already called the Democratic primary loss the worst defeat in the party's history. Appearing on CNN, political analyst Larry Sabato said the results indicate a "combination of voter caution—with voters hesitant to cast votes when no one candidate stands out—and complete and utter mathematic improbability."

"The Democratic Party is in damage-control mode right now," Sabato said. "But remember, that's a mode they're familiar with. They're definitely on the home court here."

Sabato added: "Anyway, in a political era during which Bush can get into the White House with fewer votes than his opponent, even a loss of this magnitude doesn't mean the race is over."

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: Who do I vote for??

It's too much pressure. I vote tomorrow in the Democratic Primary & I still have no idea who I'm voting for. I was leaning towards Edwards, but he hasn't come sucking up around here once that I recall. I'm not sure how I feel about a politician that doesn't grovel for my vote.

Help!

The options are (in ballot order):

LaROUCHE, LYNDON
PENNA, FERN
BRAND, KEITH
MUHAMMAD, HUDA
WYATT, BILL
CAPLETTE, RAY
BRAUN, CAROL MOSELEY
SHARPTON, AL
CLARK, WESLEY K
KUCINICH, DENNIS J
EDWARDS, JOHN
VITULLO, EVELYN L
BARKER, DIANNE
GEPHARDT, DICK
BARCHILON, WILLIAM
KERRY, JOHN F
DEAN, HOWARD
LIEBERMAN, JOE

I'm guessing it's as easy to run for your party's presidential nomination in AZ as it is to run for Gov in CA. So what do I do? Close my eyes & point?

- Mindy, voting for "anyone but Bush"

I suggest voting for someone with a uterus. Might as well make your vote a complete waste with that field

-Colly

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Having started a thread in honor of Ken James' "dream ticket," I was saddened but not surprised to read this news in today's Onion:

Democrats Somehow Lose Primaries

WASHINGTON, DC—In a surprising last-minute upset, all seven Democratic presidential hopefuls somehow lost the Democratic primaries Tuesday.

"While it's true that the Democratic Party has been struggling to find a strong voice, you can imagine our surprise when results indicated that John Kerry, Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards all failed to carry a single primary," American Research Group political analyst Dick Bennett said late Tuesday. "Oh, and Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, too."

Primaries were held in Delaware, Missouri, Arizona, Oklahoma, and South Carolina, with no single Democratic candidate coming in higher than second place.

Experts are still unsure exactly how Kerry, whom many considered the frontrunner after strong showings in Iowa and New Hampshire, lost to, and along with, every other Democratic candidate.

"Given our standing going into Tuesday, we were surprised not to take at least one state," Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said. "But, in all honesty, we were a hell of a lot more baffled that none of the other Democratic candidates won, either."

Aggregate results from the five states, with all districts reporting, show Kerry leading the other candidates, but at a distant second.

"We're going to keep fighting," Kerry said. "I'm not going to throw in the towel just because I have no idea how it is even remotely possible for all of us to lose our own primary."

"I didn't give up in Vietnam, and I won't give up here," Kerry added.

Dean shared Kerry's mixture of confusion and resolve.

"I'd like to thank everyone who worked so hard on my campaign," Dean said. "I'll need your continued support as we go to Michigan, to Washington, to Maine... With your help, I know this campaign, or one of the Democratic campaigns, can take those primaries."

After polls closed Tuesday evening, Democratic Party officials were ready to concede defeat, but no one was sure to whom the concession call should be made.

"Well, we certainly can't blame this one on the Republicans," Democratic National Convention head Terry McAuliffe said. "I guess we have to blame the candidates? Organizers like myself? Negative campaigning? The media?"

McAuliffe said candidates will have to consider how it will look to Americans that Democrats lost in a voting situation where only Democrats were on the ballot.
"While we weren't sure who would win in November, our party really thought we had this one in the bag," McAuliffe said. "But we're not a group that puts its tail between its legs and runs. There's still time to get the message out there: Vote Democrat for Democrat."

Several pundits have already called the Democratic primary loss the worst defeat in the party's history. Appearing on CNN, political analyst Larry Sabato said the results indicate a "combination of voter caution—with voters hesitant to cast votes when no one candidate stands out—and complete and utter mathematic improbability."

"The Democratic Party is in damage-control mode right now," Sabato said. "But remember, that's a mode they're familiar with. They're definitely on the home court here."

Sabato added: "Anyway, in a political era during which Bush can get into the White House with fewer votes than his opponent, even a loss of this magnitude doesn't mean the race is over."

Sher, that was the best laugh I have had in a couple of days. thank you so much!

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Sher, that was the best laugh I have had in a couple of days. thank you so much!

-Colly

You're so welcome, Colly. (Actually, I posted that one just for you so you'll understand how much we need your help.)



I think you'll like this one too:

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You're so welcome, Colly. (Actually, I posted that one just for you so you'll understand how much we need your help.)



I think you'll like this one too:

USA Patsy Act.

with us being the patsys.

-Colly

 

[Somme]

Re: Re: Who do I vote for??

I suggest voting for someone with a uterus. Might as well make your vote a complete waste with that field

-Colly

I hate to be unnecessarily difficult, but did Margaret Thatcher have one?

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: Re: Who do I vote for??

I hate to be unnecessarily difficult, but did Margaret Thatcher have one?

"Well that's personal, isn't it?"

-- Mandy, mother of Brian, when asked if she is a virgin.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do I vote for??

"Well that's personal, isn't it?"

-- Mandy, mother of Brian, when asked if she is a virgin.

Looks to me like she's thinking it over...and quite seriously.

-E

 

[Somme]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who do I vote for??

Looks to me like she's thinking it over...and quite seriously.

-E

...for which I'm feeling guilty. I should never have posed such a conundrum. now where's my hair shirt?

 

[OldnotDead]

I think you underestimate the lady

Howard Dean's wife has already been the subject of some cheap shots because she didn't accompany him to the pancake-athon in Iowa, like a good political wife. She's a doctor, and has said she plans to continue in private practice in Vermont. That alone would be enough to outrage righteous Americans who are comfortable with the Laura Bush model.

That woman set American working women back twenty years with her stand-sligthly-to-the-side-and-behind-and-gaze-adoringly-at-him 1950s persona. I bet Barbara Bush makes Laura lick the floors clean after holiday dinners.

You might want to check out a few interviews with Mrs. Bush, especially the ones that include the President and pay close attention to what is said. It is very easy to make such throwaway comments to support the prejudged position you seem to have.

My adjusted opinion of her is that she is not afraid to speak her mind, but choooses the time and place. She has some very specific ideas about things that she would like to accomplish while at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and may not make a lot of public show about them, but is very busy.

Most important, to me, anyway, is her very strong commitment to the idea of family and responsibility. Yes, she shows a significant deference to the older members of her own family and the one to which she married. At the same time, if she thought Barbara Bush expected something that was inappropriate, I'm not sure WE would ever know about it, but you can bet your bottom dollar both hubby and Barbara would know in no uncertain terms.

You see, I'm fortunate enough to be married to someone that is a lot like Laura Bush. A professional who probably has better academic credentials than my own. She made the choice to be a stay at home mom ( I would be skinned alive if I said she did not work <G> ). In public she rarely has anything to say of me critically and even shares her own dismay with my family on rare occasions with her own.

But when it is 'one on one' her aboslute and unconditional love for me does not mean that she is unafraid to let me know when I am out of line, 'wrong headed' or just plain 'assinine'. She will chew me up one side and down the other and put in me in my place and then head out to a social function with me and not one person will get any idea that there is any friction between us. She may be so angry with me that she is ready to feed me to thewolves herself, but let one person do anything to attack our family and she is the strongest defender of the lot.

I think you misunderstand the 'comfort' that a lot of Americans have with Laura Bush. There may be some men that foolishly believe she is a model of the 'corporate wife' that supports hubby in his career at the sacrifice of her own. I prefer to think that she is, like my own, someone that has sacrificed a great deal for the benefit of her children and her family and wants to make sure that the sacrifice she has made achieves results.

 

[KenJames]

Re: Re: Re: Who do I vote for??

I hate to be unnecessarily difficult, but did Margaret Thatcher have one?

A lot of countries have had female chief executives, including "improbable" ones such as The Phillipines, India and Pakistan. Someday, the US will catch up.

 

[KenJames]

Re: I think you underestimate the lady

You might want to check out a few interviews with Mrs. Bush, especially the ones that include the President and pay close attention to what is said. It is very easy to make such throwaway comments to support the prejudged position you seem to have.

My adjusted opinion of her is that she is not afraid to speak her mind, but choooses the time and place. She has some very specific ideas about things that she would like to accomplish while at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and may not make a lot of public show about them, but is very busy.

Most important, to me, anyway, is her very strong commitment to the idea of family and responsibility. Yes, she shows a significant deference to the older members of her own family and the one to which she married. At the same time, if she thought Barbara Bush expected something that was inappropriate, I'm not sure WE would ever know about it, but you can bet your bottom dollar both hubby and Barbara would know in no uncertain terms.

You see, I'm fortunate enough to be married to someone that is a lot like Laura Bush. A professional who probably has better academic credentials than my own. She made the choice to be a stay at home mom ( I would be skinned alive if I said she did not work <G> ). In public she rarely has anything to say of me critically and even shares her own dismay with my family on rare occasions with her own.

But when it is 'one on one' her aboslute and unconditional love for me does not mean that she is unafraid to let me know when I am out of line, 'wrong headed' or just plain 'assinine'. She will chew me up one side and down the other and put in me in my place and then head out to a social function with me and not one person will get any idea that there is any friction between us. She may be so angry with me that she is ready to feed me to thewolves herself, but let one person do anything to attack our family and she is the strongest defender of the lot.

I think you misunderstand the 'comfort' that a lot of Americans have with Laura Bush. There may be some men that foolishly believe she is a model of the 'corporate wife' that supports hubby in his career at the sacrifice of her own. I prefer to think that she is, like my own, someone that has sacrificed a great deal for the benefit of her children and her family and wants to make sure that the sacrifice she has made achieves results.

Personally, I'd prefer Laura to George as President.

Edited to add:
Your essay raises a couple of questions for me:

1. Why do you conclude that Laura Bush's personality is like your wife's? Do you have objective evidence or are you projecting your wife's qualities on Mrs. Bush?

2. How did you reach the conclusion that "shereads" is a man?

 

[shereads]

Re: I think you underestimate the lady

It is very easy to make such throwaway comments to support the prejudged position you seem to have.

No, it's actually difficult. Especially when the "l" key is sticking.

Most important, to me, anyway, is her very strong commitment to the idea of family and responsibility.

And yet she managed to raise scofflaws. Amazing how the antichrist and incubus of family values, Bill and Hillary Clinton, managed to raise a daughter whose grace, ambition and social awareness indicates something solid in her upbringing; while three/fourths of the children raised by the family-focused George W. and Jeb Bush families have been arrested, some of them more than once.

Perhaps it's easy to look like a centered family if no one looks past the surface.

 

[minsue]

Re: Re: I think you underestimate the lady

No, it's actually difficult. Especially when the "l" key is sticking.



And yet she managed to raise scofflaws. Amazing how the antichrist and incubus of family values, Bill and Hillary Clinton, managed to raise a daughter whose grace, ambition and social awareness indicates something solid in her upbringing; while three/fourths of the children raised by the family-focused George W. and Jeb Bush families have been arrested, some of them more than once.

Perhaps it's easy to look like a centered family if no one looks past the surface.

The Bush twins are prettier than Chelsea Clinton and that's all that people will notice, She. This is America, after all, and we don't look beyond the surface here.

- Mindy

 

[Edward Teach]

Re: Re: Re: I think you underestimate the lady

The Bush twins are prettier than Chelsea Clinton and that's all that people will notice, She. This is America, after all, and we don't look beyond the surface here.

- Mindy

IIRC a member of Congress, commenting on Chelsea's looks, made the comment that maybe Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were really her parents.

I have long believed that cerain personality types are drawn to the extremes of each political party and that those drawn to the extreme right are the meanest.

Ed

 

[minsue]

Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you underestimate the lady

IIRC a member of Congress, commenting on Chelsea's looks, made the comment that maybe Janet Reno and Hillary Clinton were really her parents.

I have long believed that cerain personality types are drawn to the extremes of each political party and that those drawn to the extreme right are the meanest.

Ed

Only because the extreme left are too politically correct to say horrible, catty things out loud in public.

- Mindy, so PC it's disgusting

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I think you underestimate the lady

Only because the extreme left are too politically correct to say horrible, catty things out loud in public.

- Mindy, so PC it's disgusting

Min,

You? PC? Say it ain't so...when did you first recognize these symptoms? There may still be time...I think it's an unwritten rule around here that conforming to things such as this can get you chained and whipped until you submit to the wild name-calling so condoned by those in the AH. Let me know if I can help...

-E (and I think Chelsea has grown out of her awkwardness much better than I imagined she would)

And the Bush sisters may be better looking, but they're shit faced most of the time and I think this hurts them.