Posted on 09/09/2004 7:05:42 AM PDT by kabar
President Bush's former sister-in-law denied yesterday that she had given author Kitty Kelley any information about allegations of past drug use by Bush.
Sharon Bush is quoted in Kelley's forthcoming book about the Bush family as making one of the allegations, and Kelley's editor said in an interview Tuesday that she had provided "confirmation" for the information.
But Sharon Bush, who is divorced from the president's brother Neil, said in a statement: "I categorically deny that I ever told Kitty Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David or that I ever saw him use cocaine at Camp David. When Kitty Kelley raised drug use at Camp David, I responded by saying something along the lines of, 'Who would say such a thing?'
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Looks as if she has more than one crack. No Pun intended! tongue in cheek.
Who I affectionately refer to as $hitty Kitty.
Let the Today show be tainted with 3 days of this garbage now.
thanks. I had not seen it.
The President can't sue her, but the other Bush family members can and so can her sources if she has twisted the truth.
As I said, if I were Kerry's campaign manager, I'd try to quiet this down. People can stand negative campaigning just so far before it backfires, and with Gore, Kennedy, Kelly and Carvile, et al screeching all over the media after a year or more of constant bashing, this is making their audience deaf.
As long as they keep the NatGuard focus on Bush, Vietnam never dies. As long as they continue to use the most puerile, sophomoric, almost scatological comments to debase President Bush, only the most deadened leftist will listen and cheer.
Everyone else will have stopped listening.
Their slash and burn tactic is the tactic of a desperate, last ditch campaign.
Pre-discredited. Not that it matters to the National Inquirer and NBC.
Kittylitter Kelly is full of sh*t, but isn't that the sole purpose of kittylitter?
For every liberal liar that falls, a dozen more will rise up and take their place. There is no shortage of liars among the ranks of the DemoRATS.
I've always regarded Kitty Kelley as a liar-writer for hire, and here's a bit more proof of that.
Well if true, it looks like Sharon has found a way to make money. Or else she got calls from Barbara and Laura.
But even her editor is not willing to come right out and claim it is true, is he?
So9
Well NBC got their Asses sue over reporting that that guy in Atalnata was the bomber, when he wasn't. Plus trashing him. didn't he sue the newspapers too. Media better be very careful. Ofcourse Dan (I hate Bush) Rather will have her on.
That leaves this National Guard(for the fourth time) tripe. That's all they've got. Go Swift Boat Vets.`
Call the Today Show for an interview.
What really happenned is that W was in the kitchen at Camp David. Laura was baking a cake and W opened a can of Coke. As he did so, some spilled into the flour, so he helped clean it up. While sweeping it up, he sneezed and wiped at his nose with a flour covered hand, leaving white residue on his nostrils.
It was a funny family story that was told to Kelley and she twisted it around to George Snorting cocaine at Camp David.
See, I can make stuff up too. I want a $4,000,000 advance.
Neither have Al-Queda couric, dan blather, peeeeetta jennings, tom broke-squacker and the rest of the BS networks. I just hope Rush, Laura and Hannity hammer this. I wish someone would challenge that perky one about this.
But Sharon Bush, who is divorced from the president's brother Neil, said in a statement: "I categorically deny that I ever told Kitty Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David or that I ever saw him use cocaine at Camp David. When Kitty Kelley raised drug use at Camp David, I responded by saying something along the lines of, 'Who would say such a thing?'
"Although there have been tensions between me and various members of the Bush family, I cannot allow this falsehood to go unchallenged."
How much of Sharon Bush's divorce settlement and her alimony if she gets it, is predicated on a clause about not divulging details about the Bush family?
I can't believe that a prominent family would not have had that little ditty inserted into the divorce agreement.
Oh, what I wouldn't give to see a copy of the settlement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.