Kitty Kelly's investigative journalism on the bush family

I've been reading some snippet's from her book about the bush family, I find these instances quite humorous but at the same time cannot believe that these people have become powerful decision maker's in this country.

Some of Kelley's findings might be challenged or modified by future historians, for The Family is but the first draft history. But one thing is clear. They have not been refuted by her contemporaries.
The cat that roared

Page 252: George H.W. Bush comes to the rescue when his sons run afoul of Andover honor codes. Jeb violates the school's alcohol ban, but he's allowed to finish his degree after his father intervenes. Years later, Kelley writes, school officials catch W.'s younger brother Marvin with drugs, but dad talks them out of expulsion and secures for his son an "honorary transfer" to another school.

Page 253: At Andover, George W. Bush writes a morose essay about his sister's death. Searching for a synonym for "tears," he consults a thesaurus and writes, "And the lacerates ran down my cheeks." A teacher labels the paper "disgraceful."

Page 261-68: A frat brother says Bush "wasn't an ass man." Another friend concurs: "Poor Georgie. He couldn't even relate to women unless he was loaded. … There were just too many stories of him turning up dead drunk on dates."

Page 309: At Harvard Business School, which W. attends from 1973 to 1975, a professor screens The Grapes of Wrath. Bush asks him, "Why are you going to show us that Commie movie?" W.'s take on the film: "Look. People are poor because they are lazy."

Page 266: George W. and coc aine. One anonymous Yalie claims he sold coke to Bush; another classmate says he and Bush snorted the drug together. Sharon Bush, W.'s ex-sister-in-law, tells Kelley that Bush has used coc aine at Camp David "not once, but many times." (Sharon has since denied telling Kelley this.)

Page 304: While working on a 1972 Alabama Senate campaign, Bush, witnesses say, "liked to sneak out back for a joint of marijuana or into the bathroom for a line of coc aine."

Page 575: A friend says Laura Bush was the "go-to girl for dime bags" at Southern Methodist University.

Page 252: George W. hangs a Confederate flag in his dorm room at Andover.

Page 268: W. on Yale's decision to admit women: "That's when Yale really started going downhill."

Page 598: George W. to McCain during the nasty 2000 South Carolina primary: "John, we've got to start running a better campaign." McCain: "Don't give me that #. And take your hands off me."


Michiko Kakutani seems to make some valid points in her New York Times review in which she says the book addresses the personal to the exclusion of the public record. The Family "is seeded with some spicy allegations about drugs and sex, but has little to say about national security, the Florida election standoff or the Bush family's ties with the Saudis," Kakutani writes. "…Far more attention is lavished on the contentious relationship between Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan, say, than on George W. Bush's collegial relationship with the neoconservatives and religious right." But that in a subtle way misses the point. In modern America, whether you like it or not, the personal is the political. Is it invalid to judge the integrity, the military record, the personal recklessness, the business practices, and formation of ideology in evaluating a sitting president?

One of the biggest stories at the heart of the Iraq War is George W. Bush's "collegial" relationship with the neoconservatives-how he got in their grip flows directly out of his personal background. Before 9/11 Bush was a drifting mannequin, and on that day, as the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 starkly shows, he was a deer in the headlights. Suddenly, he was transformed into a president who took us to war in an irrelevant country based on unsubstantiated and corrupt intelligence that has now cost a thousand American lives. How did this happen? The answer lies in Bush's relationship with his closest advisers: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz. To understand how he became in thrall to these advisers one must first delve into his personal character and background. So in the end, the personal, of which Kelley writes, is related to national security, the Florida election standoff, and the family relationship to the Saudis.

Kakutani raises an important point. There is a valid public debate here which journalism has not embraced about whether there is a separation between the personal and political. If the Bushes are hypocritical in their private lives, how credible are any of their public pronouncements or public imagery? It is perfectly legitimate to ask an author about sources. But Kelley has been subjected to a double standard. On the one hand she is dismissed because what she is saying is important, as evidenced by Lauer, while on the other she is dismissed because what she is saying is not important, as Kakutani sees it. The truth is that the mainstream media has given this administration a free ride, up to and including swallowing whole unsubstantiated allegations and outright lies as a pretext for war. There is no more serious misrepresentation in politics and life than to send kids out to die for a lie.

Kitty Kelley is not killing anyone. She is not mobilizing any troops. Yet she is being called to account for words she has written beyond the standards of which we hold the highest official in the land. The same journalists who have given this administration a free pass on a tyrant's worst offenses-stealing an election and taking a country into war under false pretenses-are grilling Kitty Kelley about the methodology and motives of a literary endeavor.

The Family is indeed a family quarrel, but it's a quarrel inside the family of American journalism. What are the implications if the Bushes are even half of what Kelley portrays? Kakutami is right that Kelley's book begs further reporting. Every managing editor in every newsroom in America should be saying to their reporters: Show me where she's wrong, and if she's right, go get the story. As John Steinbeck wrote, "it is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies."

Kitty Kelly

Indded it is in the things not mentioned that the untruth lies...
And will continue to be dismissed because this
and this flies over this


And cheerleading for your favoured political party superceeds any truth.



[edit on 23-9-2005 by TrueLies]

I like the stories that this lady is telling, make family bush look like your average wealthy one with spoil brat children that never had to earn a penny in their lives.

Daddy bush is some dedicated father keeping everything under the table and fixing his boys records so they can rule the country one day.

Putting Kitty Kelly's name in the same sentence with either of the words "investigative" or "journalism" is a joke!

Her book had no real sources and as the credibility of Weekly World News.

Kitty had best be very careful. The guy that wrote "Fortunate Son" another book critical of the President and exposing some of his past; died under very mysterious circumstances.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Putting Kitty Kelly's name in the same sentence with either of the words "investigative" or "journalism" is a joke!

Her book had no real sources and as the credibility of Weekly World News.

Actually her sources have been verified and the courts have been in her favour because they are credible, this isn't lible/slander like you would like to believe.

And it doesn't surprise me one bit you have the answer that you have.
Even if the truth hit you over the head you would still look the other way, unless of course one of your fellow republican's had something to say about it, then your ears would be open... Isn't that funny how political follower's operate. You still cease to amaze me.

I also believe that you didn't take the time to read about her and how she works and gathers sources and won't print anything unless her team can verify these findings...

Tabloid journalism is what fox wishes she was, but I guess if a station like that just utters the words then it makes it so. And it obviously works because your living proof.