Jump to content

The Wead Tapes


Recommended Posts

The tapes which were recently released were made in 1999, prior to George the XLIII taking office. The assumption is that they were made without his knowledge. This isn't illegal in Texas; so long as one party consents, any telephone conversation can legally be recorded.

In these tapes, Mr. Bush suggests - but doesn't state - that he may have used marijuana. Instead, he takes a moral stance. He wouldn't publically acknowledge doing so; children might cite him (as President) as an example. (That he wasn't yet President didn't seem to enter into the equasion.)

No. In this supposedly candid, unscripted conversation with an 'old friend', he conveniently gives the same awkward response so many parents have had to give to their own children. I've seen some bad theater, and this falls into that category.

My belief is that Mr. Doug Wead is still a trusted servant of the Bush family. This 'scandal' is merely another White House press release, thoroughly vetted and approved by advisors. We're supposed to sympathize with Mr. Bush; a trusted friend is using Secret Tapes To Promote His Book!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll dig up everything these days, just to denouce him in anyway possible.

They thought Kerry was going to win, and they could see him in office. Unfortunitly, he didn't win, so now they wanted all kinds of recounts, etc. Its so sad people refuse to give up for a cause that leads them nowhere... Or people just want attention, or there 15 min.s in fame.

If you ever see F. 9/11, you'll see at the very begging why Micheal Moore did all of it. Its very simple, but he made a mistake in doing so. He didn't think Bush supporters would watch his movie, therefore, that particular clip would "benefit" him from his supporters.

Because Bush wouldn't get an interview with them...

Wa wa wa

Thats it folks... seriously...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You never saw F 911.

Bush said he would never hire a gay person in these tapes. If you ever desire a job in public service, have fun lookin for one.

I see we have another person with reading comprehension issues:

From the New York Times article re: the tapes:

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays."

New York Times link

For those interested in actual facts regarding this particular issue, it should also be noted that President Bush has NOT repealed the Executive Order banning discrimination against gays for jobs in the federal government, angering some of his far-right supporters. This suggests that his statement that he would not FIRE gays, was accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read what I wrote again. That's exactly the implication in his answer.

Or did you just come to this forum to take issue with every tiny thing?

You wrote "Bush said he would never hire a gay person in these tapes."

I've read what you wrote several times now. It still says the same thing, and it's still false. The tapes, at least as reported in the New York Times, have no such statement or implication in them. I can't help but notice just a bit of back-pedaling here... apparently we've gone from the "Bush said..." of your first post to "Bush implied..." when of course he did neither.

You have quite a fertile imagination if you can read the words "No, what I said was, I wouldn't fire gays" as implying that he wouldn't hire gays, especially when the word "no" was in direct response to a suggestion that he had pledged not to hire gays.

My friend, it is not a "tiny thing" to post false information on these boards and yes, I will continue to take issue with such posts when I spot them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I see we have another person with reading comprehension issues."


i too, object to flaming.


It was just a simple statement of fact, my dear. And pretty clearly demonstrated, I might add. I should also add, I didn't really know who had the reading comprehension issue. Since Westguy didn't provide us with any source, I didn't know if he had read this conclusion somewhere or had read (I should say mis-read) the quote from the tapes himself... and I still don't know the answer to that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the President staunchly refused to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The act was pretty clear, to make it illegal to fire someone from their job simply due to their sexual orientation. To me, actions speak louder than words.

So, while he may say he won't "fire" gays, he certainly isn't opposed to others doing the same.

Other anti-gay things this administration has done in just the past year...

1) Public support for a Constitutional ammendment to ban recognition of any type of gay marriage.

2) Cut $4 million this year for the Centers of Disease Control for HIV/AIDS prevention while at the same time giving $38 million more to absitenence only programs.

3) The SAMHSA demanding that a conference on suicide prevention among gay youth change it's title and censure the words "gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender" from any conference literature if they wanted the federal government to participate. Kinda hard for a conference on GAY suicide prevention to eliminate those words, eh?

4) The Dept. of Health and Human Services withdrawing funding for a health conference for lesbians because Tommy Thompson said the conference didn't fit with his plans. I guess lesbian health isn't a part of those plans?

5) The Secretary of Education demanding that PBS refund money for an episode of "Postcards from Buster" because the animated rabbit visited a home in Vermont that was headed by a lesbian couple. Never mind that the show didn't once state the word "lesbian" or deal with anthing other than dairy farming and maple syrup!

6) A Bush appointee, Scott Bloch, as head of the Office of Special Counsel, has eliminated sexual orientation from the agency's website, complaint forms, and training manuals that listed the categories protected from discrimination and retribution in the federal workplace. He said he didn't think that that category was federally protected and therefore shouldn't be covered by his office. Since that time, there have been 12 formal complaints launched against the OSC for firing or reassigning people who disagreed with Bloch.

7) Using the same logic that there is no federal protection for gay employees as the OSC, the Social Security Administration tried to strike "sexual orientation" from the list of protected categories when renegotiating a contract with the employee's union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...