Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Gloves. Off.

There is absolutely no way, at this point in time, to confirm the below.

From the Wayne Madsen Report:

....in 1984, I watched [Bush] perform (with the enthusiasm of homosexual male who had done this many times before) a homosexual act on another man, namely Victor Ashe. Victor Ashe is the current Ambassador to the nation of Poland who should also come out like former Governor McGreevey of New Jersey and admit to being a gay American. Other homo-erotic acts were also performed by then private citizen George Bush because I performed one of them on him personally.

I am the woman this website (bushssecretlifein84.tripod.com) speaks of that has been posted on the net nearly two years now. None of this would be the business of anyone but President Bush's little ruse to save his failed presidency by using DOMA [Defense of Marriage Act] to divide Americans one from the other has to be exposed as the act of a desperate closeted homosexual man. The only crime in being GLBT is in the hiding. The President needs to come clean with the American people about his own past sexual behavior before he tries to besmirch the humanity of people in search of sincerely committing to the same bonds of matrimony he's afforded. He violated his own vows of monogamy having a homosexual affair with a long time family friend of whom his wife had no knowledge. His hypocrisy seems to know no bounds.

From Bush's Secret Life in '84:
Here you will find out the little known truth concerning President George W. Bush, Victor Ashe, the current American ambassador to Poland (formerly mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee and Exec. V.P.; C.F.O. of Fannie Mae), and their adulterous-bisexual relationship with a Las Vegas woman in 1984.

....The Las Vegas woman was paid $15,000 to arrange sexual liaisons involving bisexual men for George W. Bush (then private citizen) and Victor Ashe (then a Tennessee State Senator). These adulterous bisexual affairs (3 encounters in all-3 different cities) took place in the state of Tennessee during the 1984 senate debates between, Al Gore, Jr., Victor Ashe and Ed McAteer. An African-American woman was invited to participate in this adulterous sexual encounter with George W. Bush and Victor Ashe immediately following the Chattanooga senatorial debate. This woman was paid $1,500. A few years later the Las Vegas woman was detained in Washington D.C. with Victor Ashe by the Metro D.C. police. She was released but Victor was taken into custody.

There's more. Read it all. Ordinarily, I'd NEVER stoop to airing the allegations of a former dominatrix on this site. But when Bush starts pushing my friends around and telling them that they aren't good enough for the "sanctity" of marriage? Well, the gloves come off.

Truth? Blatant smear? I report, you decide.

7 Comments:

At 4:42 PM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

My friend, this is more than a little silly. You can disagree with the President on this issue (as I certainly do), but I can't imagine this is considered raising the level of the debate.

This site has consistently risen above such nonsense, and I hardly think this is the time to stop doing so.

 
At 4:55 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

And what makes you assume it's nonsense?

I'm well aware that this is questionable intel, but if this woman claims to have been there?

I'm not interested in raising the level of this particular debate. Bush and Co. have made it clear that they have no respect for Gay Americans, and that they intend to limit their rights to the things you and I take for granted.

Given that that's the case, why shouldn't he answer questions about his past potential canoodling with men (or man, as the case may be)?

If he's at the forefront of a "sanctity of marriage movement," why shouldn't he be asked about possible infidelity? Especially of a bi variety?

 
At 5:00 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

In deference to your calm comment, I've taken the liberty of editing my post.

The majority of it remains.

 
At 6:11 PM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

Well, a couple of things:

1) How about former President Carter respond to my claim that he loves sex with donkeys? I saw him doing it. Now he has to respond to this?

2) If we're not interested in raising the level of the debate, then so be it. Except that it undermines our point. There are a thousand reasons to oppose Bush on his policies in this regard without resorting to this. I mean, let's just say it's true (and I think we can all agree that's questionable), then so what? If President Clinton can, with the help of the Justice Department, jail those for selling the same marijiana (not the exact same, obviously) that he admitted using, why would this be any different?

It's the use of a personal life story to attack an individual's politics, and it resembles the very worst of the Republican Party at the height of the Clinton sex scandals.

 
At 6:51 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

I disagree, respectfully.

1) How about former President Carter respond to my claim that he loves sex with donkeys? I saw him doing it. Now he has to respond to this?

He does if you can back your statement up with details, dates, and verifiable evidence.

Whether this woman can is unanswered, but that's where being a blog comes in. We're allowed to talk about this stuff. I've made it clear that this is unverified. There's no attempt to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.

2) If we're not interested in raising the level of the debate, then so be it. Except that it undermines our point. There are a thousand reasons to oppose Bush on his policies in this regard without resorting to this. I mean, let's just say it's true (and I think we can all agree that's questionable), then so what? If President Clinton can, with the help of the Justice Department, jail those for selling the same marijiana (not the exact same, obviously) that he admitted using, why would this be any different?

I agree that there are a thousand reasons to oppose Bush on this, but I think this is much different than your Clinton example.

The issue of homosexual marriage comes down to morality, not legality. As such, those purporting to uphold "traditional morality" have a responsibility to defend their position. Otherwise, the argument they make is rendered impotent. If Bush supports the "sanctity" of marriage to the extent that he's pushing to amend the Constitution and alter the fabric of our nation (whether successful or not), then I think it very much does matter that he's engaged in that same immorality.

It's the use of a personal life story to attack an individual's politics, and it resembles the very worst of the Republican Party at the height of the Clinton sex scandals.

How can you possibly separate the personal from the political in this realm? Maybe you're seeing something I do not (it wouldn't be the first time), but what this boils down for me is as follows:

1) Bush et al propose an amendment to the Constitution based upon religious and moral belief.

2) The implicit suggestion of such an amendment is that marriage is sacred, between man and woman, and should never be otherwise.

3) Bush may have engaged in both infidelity and same-sex fun, thus demonstrating that his beliefs were once 180 degrees opposite from where they are now.

4) Any moral authority is removed.

I could care less what he does in his spare time. It's his life, and he shouldn't be punished for living it.

But when he seeks to punish others for same? I see that as hypocrisy of the highest magnitude.

Here's a hypo:

You're gay. Not you, but you get the point. Your father tells you that being gay is an affront against God. That gays have no right to marriage. That it is wrong, immoral, and that anyone who engages in it is unnatural.

You discover that your father may have had gay sex years ago.

Now, does your father's condemnation hold any weight at all?

There are two aspects to the battle for gay rights, whether I like it or not. First, is the legalistic and political. Second, is the moral and religious. And you can't begin to combat the latter without beginning to address these sorts of things.

This amendment preys on bigotry. What would it's supporters say if Bush really did smoke some pole back in the day? How might that change their attitudes toward homosexuality?

 
At 6:53 PM, Blogger codemorse said...

Corrections: implicit should read explicit.

And this should read as follows:

The issue of homosexual marriage comes down to morality over legality.

 
At 9:48 AM, Blogger Jabawacefti said...

A couple of follow up thoughts:

1) Regarding the Carter analogy, the bottom line is this: This accusation (which is how this is being levied) is ludicrous on its face. Any idiot can make this stuff up, and add details and dates. I would imagine that anyone reading this would find it patently absurd, and I'd be suprised if it were otherwise. Just because some loon alleges something doesn't necessarily mean it's worth airing. Particularly nonsense like this.

2) Regarding the implication that these alleged sexual acts have some bearing on Bush's position on gay marriage, this is the same status as argument support or detractor that I generally think is irrelevant. For example, these sorts of arguments were routinely made against Clinton. How could a draft dodger send troops into war? How could a marijuana user jail people for selling it? His political positions are public policy. And attacking his past actions to attack his policy decisions always seemed to me to be attacking the policy at the lowest common denominator.

3) Additionally, let's assume that this nonsense is true. Whether he engaged in a homosexual act is only tangentially related to the issue of same-sex marriage. He's not proposing a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual activity of the kind of which it has been alleged that he engaged in. He's putting forth a ban on homosexual marriage. These are two fundamentally separate issues, and should not be so loosely conflated. I understand that the action bears on the same group of people, in theory at least, but what he is proposing would not outlaw his own conduct (even assuming it were true).

4) Regarding the father analogy, the only reason that his personal actions impact his opinions (in my eyes) would be in the context of our relationship.

5) And let's say it's true again, what difference does it make whether the supporters of the Constitutional Amendment change their mind if they find that "Bush really did smoke some pole"? If their motivation is bigotry, should it make us feel any better that they'd change their mind based on their affinity for Bush? Converting the prejudiced by appealing to another prejudice shouldn't be the goal.

6) All of this takes attention away from the issues (that are important) and turn them toward the man. During the Clinton years, his detractors fell into the same trap. I dislike the man, so I'm willing to believe anything bad said about him. And they'd focus on the personal failings without even bothering to rebut the political and ideological differences.

7) I understand that some consider this a moral issue. And I suppose it is, although we can debate for years the relative morality immersed in our criminal codes, our family law, etc. But are we really ready to take on, in President Clinton's words, "the politics of personal destruction," merely because the underlying issue is moral in nature? I would respectfully suggest that would allow for a purported respectability toward all of these attacks in the name of morality. Is that what we want?

I don't know, just some thoughts.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home