For those of you having trouble waiting for Kitty Kelly's book,

check this four part series out. It starts Bush's bio with a bang:

"The mad cowboys are on the loose. Pack only what you can carry. Liberate the animals. Leave the rest behind. The looters are hot on the trail. Only ruin stands in their wake. Not even women and children are safe. Especially not them. Run for the hills and don't look back. Don't ever look back.

"So the story goes, anyway."

<snip>

"Because it's all an act, of course, a put on, a dress game. And not a very convincing one at that. Start from the beginning. George W. Bush wasn't born a cowboy. He entered the world in New Haven, Connecticut, hallowed hamlet of Yale. His bloodlines include two presidents and a US senator. The cowboy act came later, when he was famously re-birthed, with spurs on his boots, tea in his cup and the philosophical tracts of Jesus of Nazareth on his night table. Bush is a pure-blooded WASP, sired by a man who would later become the nation's chief spook, a man frequently called upon to clean up the messes left by apex crooks in his own political party, including his own entanglements (and those of his sons) with the more noirish aspects of life. "

http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair08312004.html

This is great gossipy stuff, well worth a quick read.

This isn't Kitty Kelly. This is Jeffrey St. Clair.

good post

Many Thanks for the post!:toast:


Here is one of my favorite lines:

As team president, Bush printed up baseball cards with his photo on them in Ranger attire, endulging his life-long fetish for dress-up fantasies. He would hand out the Bush cards during home game. Invariably, the cards would be found littering the floors of the latrines, soaked in beer and piss......BAHAHAHA i'm still in stitches over that!

... needs to be a little less snarky, and to avail himself of serious editorial assistance, and then he might be taken seriously. As it is, he's not going to be taken seriously.

Lots of interesting tidbits, none of them verified and no way of verifying them. Tattletale journalism in the British tabloid vein, at best.

Serious journalists don't consistently spell savior "savoir," for example.

A lot of what he writes might be true (I'd particularly like a source for the story that Dubya got so pissed at Pickles for her harping about his drinking that he drove through his own garage door), but it's so easily dismissed that it doesn't bear serious consideration. Without comprehensive sourcing, it fails to measure up to the lowest standard of good journalism.

Tantalizing, but, in its present form, worthless.

in an interview with Laura during the 2000 campaign. But she told it not as a story about his being a furious drunk, but just about his being upset and distracted because she had criticized his speech. After that, she said, she never criticized another speech.

Of course, she also didn't say that what she criticized about his speech was that it was delivered drunk. I don't know if it was, but her story about the car through the garage wall certainly didn't say he was drunk.

He believed that Bush was drunk and angry and stupid, from the account, while Bush may have been just stupid and angry.

Still, one has to parse the evidence carefully to arrive at the truth. *smile*

Cheers.

as well as poor proof reading/editing.

... several times, and it's the author's fault. It occurs consistently in the series of articles.

And, on edit, that's not the only lapse. That's an example. But, prominently, it's the lack of documentation that really bothers me. You mention a story related by Pickles--nowhere in the article is that mentioned, nor is there any other independent source. I guess that's what I mean by his writing resembling that of the British tabloid press.

Cheers.

When my fingers THINK they know what my brain intends but get it wrong? Earlier this evening I had to correct mistyping "sign" for "sig" (as in sig line) about 5 times. It was a TYPO. Do I know the difference? Yes. Did I catch it at the time? Yes. But there very well could be many times that I don't catch my own typos. I SPELL quite well, as a rule (there are a few exceptions). But my typing isn't always as good.

The author's fault? Yeah, no argument there -- but I still consider it a typo. YMMV.

And oh, btw, I was neither defending the article or even disagreeing with you about YOUR take on it, OTHER than the typo vs. spelling issue. I haven't read it yet myself, so your other remarks are at this point irrelevent since I HAVE no opinions on them.

There's a higher standard implied.

My remarks aren't irrelevant. They germane, because I have read it.

Cheers.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2315089


It's worth the read to others and I thought more people would have a chance to read it under it's real title. Not stealing your thunder Warpy.

which, if accurate, should be made known to the voters, particularly those of non-Christian persuasions . . . to wit . . .

"Only those who have accepted Jesus as their personal savoir will be permitted entry into heaven" . . . apparently printed in the Houston Chronicle, no less . . .

Part Two: Mark His Words
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair09012004.html

Part Three: More Pricks Than Kicks
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair09022004.html

Part Four: Jesus Told Him Where to Bomb
http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair09032004.html

Part Five is due out today or tomorrow . . . don't know if there are more after that . . .