If you don't like left-wing, liberal biased, suspect reports, then leave this thread . My retort to newsmax and the Drudge report.

http://www.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159

Was George W. Bush "Involved"
in an Illegal Abortion??

Read our archives

Join the investigation

On CNN's Crossfire on October 20, 2000, Larry Flynt exploded a bombshell: that he has evidence that George W. Bush was "involved in an abortion in Texas" in the early 1970's - when abortions were still illegal.

Here are the details, as reported by Bartcop:

In the winter of 1971 George W. Bush was dating a woman named Robin Lowman (now Robin Garner). Miss Lowman became pregnant by Smirk and he arranged for her to have an abortion - which in the great state of Texas in 1971 was very illegal! Not to mention that George W. is running as a pro-life candidate for the presidency.
The unnamed source of this story, was a friend of Robin Lowman's and the girlfriend of the man who arranged the abortion. His name is Robert Carl Chandler. Chandler is a Bush friend and supporter from way back and he made the arrangements for Miss Lowman's abortion at the Twelve Oaks Hospital in Houston, TX (now the Bayou City Medical Center). The source overheard the call by Mr. Chandler to arrange the abortion and the source visited Robin Lowman at the Twelve Oaks Hospital after the procedure.

The source meanwhile, is afraid of coming forward, saying that she was threatened by Chandler and another Bush friend and supporter named Jim Bath. Bath has longstanding intelligence connections, and played a role in the BCCI scandal. Robin Lowman (now Garner) is married to Jerry Lee Garner who is an FBI agent.

So, that's the story: an illegal back room abortion arranged by the Republican party Presidential candidate who is running on a pro-life ticket.

Oo, this one's good enough for its own thread.

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor.../con04119.html

Bush-Approved Lie About Kerry's Support for the Troops

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen

The Bush campaign's most recent TV ad attacking John Kerry's vote against supporting our troops is a bald-faced lie.

That ad specifically refers to Senate Bill 1689 passed on 10/17/ 2003

http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2328.

Broadly speaking, it was for the appropriation of $87 BILLION to fund the occupation of Iraq.

The Bush camp has captioned what amounts to a short "clip" of that legislation for the purpose of selling their lie. Senators Kerry, Byrd, and others were actually for the full funding of the troops, but were, in that one Roll Call vote, attempting to place some oversight and accountability for those expenditures by forcing a vote which would have required it.

Because the GOP rubberstamp machine basically wanted to issue Bush's War Department a blank check, their attempt failed. And as a result of that failure, all that cash is now being pissed away on who-knows-what.

For an accurate grasp on how it all went down, check this:

"I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check."- excerpt Robert S. Byrd, October 17, 2003.

http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/...

Read it and weep for the truth.

Byrd, Kerry, and a handful of other Senators were boldly trying to force Congressional oversight of those expenditures. Wouldn't it have been nice to place some fiscal responsibility over how that $87 BILLION was to be spent, given the rising stories of unchecked spending by the Administration's "rebuilding" contractors?

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1559574

Before CEO Bush grabbed the reigns of the GOP, fiscal responsibility was one of the mainstays of the Conservative agenda. But thanks to our present Administration and its rubberstamping Congress, we're now facing deficits as far as the eye can see. Each and every baby born in America today is facing a $30,000.00+ debt because their unquestioning support of the Bush Administration agenda of wild deficit spending.

Comparing the date on the legislation to which the ad obliquely refers with the date Bush unleashed his blitzkrieg on Baghdad, I'd say that Bush has actually approved of an ad which proves that he basically sent the troops in ill-equipped.

Based on that simple fact, can any Bush supporter actually say that it was COMMENDABLE that Bush sent those troops into battle ill-equipped for seven months before Congress finally approved of the funds for adequate equipment?

And as a self-professed Christian, didn't Bush break God's Holy Word to never bear false witness against another? Or does all his Christianity fly the window when it comes to campaigning-Texas-style?

Here's an idea. To avoid such embarrassing "mistakes" in the future, Bush GOPeratives should advertise only positive messages of the good legislation that they're proposing in the future. What's could go wrong with sticking to the truth?

Like Gee Dubya's idea of sending Halliburton to Mars [Petroleum News], relaxing the Mexican border security [WJLA.com], his bold plan for curtailing the export of American jobs [Seattle Post-Intelligencer], and making permanent those tax cuts for the rich [New York Times], his future promises for requiring corporate responsibility [BuzzFlash.com], and legislating more secure marriages for heterosexuals.

That's the ticket.

- One Citizen

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION

Done for now, and I believe my point has been proven.

Yes, Democrat sources are whacked out. Good job.

Post text in response or do not post at all.....