Bob Miller wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 16:49:28 GMT, D Peter Maus
wrote:

Bob Miller wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:20:31 -0400, dxAce
wrote:

Tommy Tootard wrote:

dxAce wrote:
Al Gore's son arrested (yet again):

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2581.html

Like Father, Like Son!
Yup, it almost reminds you of W's coke head daughters.
They been busted for coke? Has George?
When Bush/43 was asked about his cocaine use he refused to answer the
question. If he couldn't say "no" that leaves only one alternative.

By that logic, if he couldn't say 'yes' that leaves only one
alternative as well.

Since he was running for president on a conservative ticket, his two
choices were either "no" or to simply not answer, if "no" would not
have been truthful.




You missed my point. Either answer would have diverted attention from
his policies on the campaign trail. "Yes" would have sparked ceaseless
wrangling. And "No" would have sparked ceaseless wrangling.

If he'd done cocaine, and admitted it, there would have been a couple
of his snorting buddies trotted out who'd have testified they snorted
with him, and then there would have been the entire, 'what did he snort
and when did he snort it' questions anywhere he went. All the talking
heads would have been on it. It would have become an albatross on the
campaign trail.

If he'd not done cocaine, and denied it, as evidenced by the lengths
to which the opposition went in the military discharge story (ie, abject
dismissal of Bush's senior and commanding officers who asserted he had
completed his service with distinction, and falsification of documents
asserting otherwise), there would have been a couple of people who would
have been brought forward and testified that he did, in fact, use
cocaine, followed by allegations he was high in the military, while in
flight, during his tenure as Governor, etc, etc...and now he's got a
REAL problem. And make no mistake, this was in the works. Two of his
college classmates admitted to being paid by sources unrevealed to make
these charges when the time came. It didn't, and they didn't, and though
the story didn't die, it didn't become a liability, either. But the
tools were in place to make it so should he eventually respond.

Al Franken, on Letterman, told of an encounter with Bush where he
tried to trick Bush into admitting he'd used amphetamines to get though
finals week in college. And Bush failed to respond to that, too. Which
surprised Franken..because if he responded to that question about
amphetamines, why would he not then comment when asked about cocaine.

Franken said, and this is a quote, "He outsmarted me. He just
outsmarted me. He took away anything that could have been asserted
after that."

So, to not answer simply removed potential obstacles far greater
than the nagging suspicions left in the wake of an unanswered question.

Because if he had addressed the question, he'd have been screwed
either way.

This was a strictly political maneuver. On both sides. And it was
very well played to a stalemate.

So, in response to your remark...."Since he was running for
president on a conservative ticket, his two choices were either "no" or
to simply not answer, if "no" would no have been truthful," is
inaccurate. He had only one choice....a non answer. Because to respond
either way would have been disastrous. Leaving the implication that he
didn't say 'no' because it would have been untruthful as the only thing
left to complete the mission of the person who asked the question in the
first place: To implicate the candidate by his own words whether they
were spoken or not.

It's a twist on the classic 'have you stopped beating your wife'
scenario....there isn't a response leads to anything but an indictment.

Becasue of the politics, the only thing that can be concluded by
Bush's failure to respond with either a 'no' or a 'yes' is that the
question remains unanswered. Anybody in politics knows why. The public,
only wishing for an indictment of his character, is left to draw a
conclusion that is implied by the questioner, but not by the candidate.

Again, excellently played. And without a single fact, without a
single accusation, affirmation or denial.

Typical big-time politics.