It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitol Hill Blue Bashes Bush AGAIN

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Wow! There is no doubt that the people at Capitol Hill Blue are really going after Bush. Yesterday, they published the article Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression, Erratic Behavior. That article was discussed in the thread Bush on Anti-Depressants.

Today, Capitol Hill Blue published the following article.

Sullen, Depressed President Retreats Into Private, Paranoid World


A sullen President George W. Bush is withdrawing more and more from aides and senior staff, retreating into a private, paranoid world where only the ardent loyalists are welcome.

Cabinet officials, senior White House aides and leaders on Capitol Hill complain privately about the increasing lack of face time with the President and campaign advisors are worried the depressed President may not be up to the rigors of a tough re-election campaign.

Yes, there are concerns, a top Republican political advisor admitted privately Wednesday. The George W. Bush we see today is not the same, gregarious, back-slapping President of old. Hes moody, distrustful and withdrawn.

This is a President known for his ability to charm people one-on-one, says a staff member to House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert. Not any more.

White House aides say Bush has retreated into a tightly-controlled environment where only top political advisors like Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are allowed. Even White House chief of staff Andrew Card complains he has less and less access to the President.


Read the whole article. There is a lot more, including the disturbing claim that John Ashcroft is the real power behind the throne.




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Yes, Capitol Hill Blue regularly tries to bash Bush - nothing new there. They have a history of LYING in their articles, so I don't give much weight to what they say. For example, from Newsmax:


In a statement made Monday to NewsMax.com, Nancy Reagan said she is strongly endorsing George W. Bush's re-election and categorically denied a published Internet report that said she was not backing his run for a second term.

Joanne Drake, the chief of staff for former President Reagan's office in Los Angeles, said in a statement on behalf of the former first lady, "Mrs. Reagan supports President Bush's re-election 150 percent."

Published reports have suggested that Mrs. Reagan was unhappy with President Bush for his strong opposition to stem cell research, which Mrs. Reagan has supported after her husband's long bout with Alzheimer's disease.

Drake, however, noted in her statement on behalf of Mrs. Reagan, "I think everyone would understand that while she may not agree with the president on every issue, this campaign is more than just one issue - it's about leadership and she believes that President Bush is the right man for the job."

Mrs. Reagan's statement came on the heels of a July 30th report published on the Web site capitolhillblue.com.

The Web report, headlined "Nancy Reagan to Bush: 'We Don't Support Your Re-Election,'" quoted a "spokesman" for Mrs. Reagan as telling the site, "Mrs. Reagan does not support President Bush's re-election and neither do most members of the President's family."

Drake also denied the Web site's claim that Mrs. Reagan told Republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or President Bush, or that she "went ballistic" when she learned the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used Reagan's photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported Bush and his re-election.

Capitolhillblue.com also claimed that Mrs. Reagan personally called Republican Party Chief Ed Gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.

"The quote that appeared in Capitol Hill Blue is incorrect," Drake said on behalf of Mrs. Reagan. "Further, I do not know where the information came from [indicating that] the former first lady went ballistic when she read the Bush campaign was test marketing new ads. She did not speak to Ed Gillespie on the telephone and demand the ads be destroyed..."

By endorsing President Bush's re-election, Mrs. Reagan joins President Reagan's eldest son Michael, who had already announced his strong support for the president. Michael will also be speaking at the upcoming GOP convention in New York.

(Edited to remove 2 paragraphs about Ronald Reagan Jr.)

If the man does have a disorder that requires medication to control, he deserves our compassion as human beings. Only the insensitive and uncouth would find joy in someone's malady.




posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:28 PM
link   
jsobecky says


Yes, Capitol Hill Blue regularly tries to bash Bush - nothing new there. They have a history of LYING in their articles, so I don't give much weight to what they say. For example, from Newsmax:


ROTFLMAO! You are using Newsmax to debunk Capitol Hill Blue! The information in the Capitol Hill Blue article may very well be incorrect, but I will need a better source than Newsmax before I believe Capitol Hill Blue is in error. I believe the Capitol Hill Blue story said that Nancy will not be attending the Republican Convention. Does Newsmax say anything about that?

I have commented in other posts about the reliability of Capitol Hill Blue. I am well aware that they are not the most reliable source.

By the way, Newsmax refers to Michael as Reagan's son. Michael is adopted. Only Ronald Jr. and Pattie are the biological children of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Both Ronald Jr. and Pattie support Kerry.


If the man does have a disorder that requires medication to control, he deserves our compassion as human beings. Only the insensitive and uncouth would find joy in someone's malady.


If Bush is taking mind-altering drugs to control depression and erratic behavior, do you think the White House should disclose this fact? Would it be deceptive and unethical for the Bush administration to conceal this information?

I ask you, does this man deserve compassion?










[edit on 8/2/2004 by donguillermo]



posted on Aug, 2 2004 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
ROTFLMAO! You are using Newsmax to debunk Capitol Hill Blue!
I believe the Capitol Hill Blue story said that Nancy will not be attending the Republican Convention. Does Newsmax say anything about that?

Touche'. And no, no mention of Mrs. Reagan's not attending the RNC.


By the way, Newsmax refers to Michael as Reagan's son. Michael is adopted. Only Ronald Jr. and Pattie are the biological children of Ronald and Nancy Reagan. Both Ronald Jr. and Pattie support Kerry.

I would wager that most, if not all, adoptive parents love and consider their adopted offspring to be their own children. The only difference is biological.


If Bush is taking mind-altering drugs to control depression and erratic behavior, do you think the White House should disclose this fact? Would it be deceptive and unethical for the Bush administration to conceal this information?

This is not a simple yes or no question; we could debate this all night. There have been many instances of world leaders who have had their maladies and personal misdeeds kept discreet until after their reign or until they die. What would it serve to expose this malady, which seems to be common knowledge (or speculation)? If you force me to give an answer, I would say that no, it is not deceptive or unethical. People do have certain rights to personal privacy, too, especialy when it comes to their anatomy or health.


I ask you, does this man deserve compassion?




Absolutely. Surely you don't suggest that only the photogenic deserve compassion?




posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:33 AM
link   
It's a big issue that deserves full vetting, not humanizing & breaking down to commonality.
You have a "handled" president that was ALWAYS shielded from opposite opinion .......he's famously quoted as saying that newspapers or news programs are not needed...he gets it ALL from advisors.
Now, a FURTHER level of detachment is supposedly added on, fueled by mind altering drugs. Drugs that are designed to affect ATTITUDE & PERCEPTION!!!!!!

Further handicapping a petty & uncurious mind with drugs is like putting mayonaise on a shiit sandwhich.

By the way, this should be on the banner at the top of this site's page.....it' perfectly captures the man & his take on the presidency.





posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:52 AM
link   



You still don't think so?? He's so cute!




posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
It's a big issue that deserves full vetting, not humanizing & breaking down to commonality.
:
Further handicapping a petty & uncurious mind with drugs is like putting mayonaise on a shiit sandwhich.

Well then, spew on. I'm sure there are a few donkey boys out there waiting to lap up your never ending, never changing diatribe of bile.




posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
If the president is not totally evil, he probably deserves our human compassion. That however doesn't diminish the fact that he has no business being president. The impression one gets is a dunce with some religious fervor. This is NOT a good recipe for a world leader.

PS. Is it true that he, as a boy, used to put firecrackers in frogs and blew them up? Has he put away boyish toys (frogs) and gone on to people?
.



posted on Aug, 11 2004 @ 05:35 AM
link   
DG,
i cant determine if the info in your link is true because it lacks any kind of credibillity as there are NO NAMED SOURCES to referance and give cerdibillity to.

This is not to say that the article is false in whole or part, mearly that none of it can be verified.

As far as release of medical info, i find it distasteful for someone to have to share their medical situations with anyone they dont wish to, including the President. However, as he is a public figure of importance, i can see where the public might like to know these things.

One of our Presidents hid the fact that he was in a wheelchair for quite a while before allowing this "percieved medical weakness" to escape into the public. He was right to do so because back then, as we can see today...medical problems will be twisted to become something that will be misunderstood and used for political gain by detractors.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join