Condi and Shrub Sex Scandal! Has anyone else heard this?

[Catamount]

Rhandi Rhodes talked about it yesterday and said:
Reliable Sources have acknowledged that Laura has moved out of the WH into the Mayflower Hotel, because of an ongoing affair between the prez and Miss Rice!
No it wasn't on BS news--she seemed serious!
Perhaps that dirty little word SEX will do what every other abomination committed by this admin, hasn't been able to do--STICK!
I wait with bated breath!
:sarcasm:

[muntrv]

1. I hope this is true.

We need to retaliate against the repukes for the Lewinsky bullshit.

[Bucky]

48. Please. What're you gonna do? Impeach a guy over an affair? Who'd buy it?

Talk about loco. Don't you think Congress is a little too serious a place to worry about whether the president is screwing around? How petty do you think they are?

[Clark2008]

59. You forgot this:

:sarcasm:

[hollowdweller]

2. Possessed with the "Spirit of Strom"?

[Catamount]

21. Yeah, it must be catching!

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Has anybody heard this?

Has anybody NOT heard this?

[Drum]

6. lol !

And in the interest of variety, I enclose this picture, with props to whomever first fixed and posted it here at DU:

[Catamount]

20. Thank you--that's priceless! (well done too!)

[Karenina]

76. Here's an oldie from the cyberkeller

That is NOT photoshopped...

[Catamount]

17. I expected this to be everywhere --but only after I posted did I...

see the other thread!
I'm spanking myself now!

[Jackpine Radical]

23. Autoflagellation?

I guess there's a new paraphilia born every minute.

[idgiehkt]

4. would he be pushing the marriage amend. with the mrs. gone?

that is too funny...if anyone protests this one monday everyone needs to bring a copy of the enquirer with the story on it...if it's true that is. Wow.

[knitter4democracy]

71. Of course--it's the Opposite Administration.

He does and means the opposite of much of what he says and does.

[diddlysquat]

5. I thought he was impotent.

[sam sarrha]

8. can we impeach him for a 'Noodle' job... ??

:spray: :rofl:

[Catamount]

22. LOL!

[Bucky]

49. What's a noodle job? When you do someone smarter than you? If so...

Then every Bush affair is a noodle job.

[sam sarrha]

74. Oral sex when it cant get hard, ..impotents due to antidepressants

limp as a noodle

[sam sarrha]

9. Pickles already ran down and killed one guy that jilted her.. watch out W

[mykpart]

45. I thought she was a lesbian.

[Bucky]

50. Heavens no! She's a career gal. She's dated several men in DC

I've heard gossip--Wonkette, I think--about her and some bigwig Republican attorney. I seriously doubt this affair with Bush thing, tho.

Power is an aphrodesiac, not a brainwasher.

[Quantess]

67. Oh, don't be mean to the Wenis.

:rofl: Wenis

[hedda_foil]

7. It's Wayne Madsen's story

[madrchsod]

13. what`s wrong with wayne? just because he thinks

we are assholes doesn`t mean he`s creditable...just kidding....

[Ladyhawk]

36. I vaguely remember when Wayne Madsen lost credibility here.

What I can't remember is why. Can someone help me out? I made a mental note to discount him, but I shouldn't do that without really knowing what happened and looking into it myself.

[RandomKoolzip]

43. I think it was when he tried to prove that election fraud, chemtrails,

and the 2004 tsunami were all connected somehow.

[arwalden]

10. Sounds Like Something That TruthOut Or RawStory Should Research!!

[Ladyhawk]

37. Are you making a funny?

Because had I been imbibing a liquid, I would have done this:

:spray:

[arwalden]

41. Quick... Get Pitt And Leopold On This Right Away!!

:hi:

[Catrina]

53. How about CNN? You know, the really credible news sources who

reported accurately on all that WMD stuff that we needed to go kill people over?? How about that ABC story about Haster being investigated by the FBI? The FBI denied it. Hastert Denied it! Whatever happened to that reporter? You must be really outraged over that? Did he retract it? Did he apologize? Or, maybe if we wait awhile we'll find out that Hastert is lying! Fox?? Maybe they should do the story on Laura, George and Condi?

Come to think of it, I would have way more faith in TO and Rawstory. As I recall, I read the truth on those sites when the MSM was cheering for the war. Funny how some people forget all that. But then, the Leopold story, if true, would mean a political hack got indicted, whereas the MSM War tales, got tens of thousands of innocent people slaughtered, tortured and maimed. If only people had been reading TO and Rawstory, think how many lives would have been saved.

Priorities. We all have our priorities, I guess ~ :eyes:

[arwalden]

56. Well...

<< Come to think of it, I would have way more faith in TO and Rawstory. >>

... I have higher standards than that.


<< How about that ABC story... (words, words, words) ...>>

Yes? What about those things? You seem to be suggesting that because other news outlets and other reporters are imperfect that we should give a free pass to "our own" whenever they make mistakes. Frankly, I think it's important to hold "our own" to the highest standards we possibly can... you know... to DIFFERENTIATE them from the rest of corporate media.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical to get upset with corporate media and to demand better from corporate media, while NOT demanding the same performance from liberal blogs? -- I smell hypocrisy.


<< If only people had been reading TO and Rawstory, think how many lives would have been saved. >>

That's pure fantasy.


<< Priorities. We all have our priorities, I guess >>

... and others just hand out free-passes because the "reporter" is on "our side". Hypocrisy be damned, eh?! As long as he's one of the "good guys" then there's no need to hold them to the high standards we demand of everyone else.

I think it's pretty clear where your "priorities" are.

[Catrina]

61. 'I think it's important to hold "our own" to the highest standards'

I don't consider a particular media 'our own'. I consider all media to be responsible for telling the truth.

I don't expect that any media will be 100% accurate all of the time. People are human and do make mistakes.

What I do object to in the media are deliberate lies and cover-ups to protect an administration such as the one currently running the country.

I don't invest any emotion in any particular reporter. I am invested in Democracy and therefore consider it a matter of the utmost importance that the MSM, which is where the vast majority of the American people receive their news, tell the truth.

Over the past five years, the US media has slipped, year by year to #44 on the list of countries that has a free press. I consider this to be of the utmost importance, so important that it places democracy itself in jeopardy. It certainly is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

If you care to invest your energy in one small blog or a particular reporter and make that your priority, that is your prerogative. I will continue to care more about the overall state of the US media because of the importance of a free press in the preservation of any democracy. That is my priority.

But while the press failed the American people, small blogs like TO stepped up to the plate, took the heat for attempting to get SOME truth out and for that I respect them.

Talk to me again when TO reports that Iran has WMDs and we must invade and kill them. That will cause them to lose any respect they earned over the past few years. One article, which may turn out to be true or not, will not cause me to waste too much precious time. There are far more important issues relating to truth in the media I will focus on.

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491

I have a feeling Thomas Jefferson, himself a victim often of deliberate attacks and outright lies in the press, would appreciate the efforts of TO and other liberal blogs in these times. I also doubt he would be obsessed with one article that at worst may turn out to be wrong. He was fairly forgiving of mistakes, although not of the kind of deliberate collusion with a criminal administration evident in the MSM.

"Cherish... the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:58

I hope that makes clear where my priorities are.

[arwalden]

62. ~

<< I don't consider a particular media 'our own'. I consider all media to be responsible for telling the truth. >>

Your previous posts indicate otherwise.

<< I don't expect that any media will be 100% accurate all of the time. People are human and do make mistakes. >>

I welcome and encourage you to continue making reasonable and rational statements like that one. :thumbsup:

<< What I do object to in the media are deliberate lies and cover-ups to protect an administration such as the one currently running the country. >>

I guess I just don't share your paranoia.

<< I don't invest any emotion in any particular reporter. >>

Your previous posts indicate otherwise.

<< I am invested in Democracy and therefore consider it a matter of the utmost importance that the MSM, which is where the vast majority of the American people receive their news, tell the truth. >>

And still you point to the mistakes of "MSM" (corporate media) as being a valid reason to accept the mistakes and errors of liberal blog "reporters".

<< Over the past five years, the US media has slipped, year by year to #44 on the list of countries that has a free press. I consider this to be of the utmost importance, so important that it places democracy itself in jeopardy. It certainly is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people. >>

Wow. All the way down to 44th? If you say so. I assume you're not just making up numbers, so I'll take you at your word.

<< If you care to invest your energy in one small blog or a particular reporter and make that your priority, that is your prerogative. >>

Yet you still try to deny me that prerogative. Why?

<< I will continue to care more about the overall state of the US media because of the importance of a free press in the preservation of any democracy. That is my priority. >>

That, and giving free passes to liberal blogs.

<< But while the press failed the American people, small blogs like TO stepped up to the plate, took the heat for attempting to get SOME truth out and for that I respect them. >>

Respect, and hold them to different standards of accountability.

<< Talk to me again when TO reports that Iran has WMDs and we must invade and kill them. That will cause them to lose any respect they earned over the past few years. One article, which may turn out to be true or not, will not cause me to waste too much precious time. There are far more important issues relating to truth in the media I will focus on. >>

Irrelevant to this topic.

<< "The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491 >>

:patriot:

<< I have a feeling Thomas Jefferson, himself a victim often of deliberate attacks and outright lies in the press, would appreciate the efforts of TO and other liberal blogs in these times. >>

Easy to say, difficult to prove.


<< I also doubt he would be obsessed with one article that at worst may turn out to be wrong. >>

Easy to say, difficult to prove.

<< He was fairly forgiving of mistakes, although not of the kind of deliberate collusion with a criminal administration evident in the MSM. >>

Does corporate media have flaws? Certainly! -- Is there "deliberate collusion"? Well, let's just say that I'm not as paranoid as some people are.

<< "Cherish... the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:58 >>

:patriot:

<< I hope that makes clear where my priorities are. >>

Not really. But now I know where they are NOT.

[Catrina]

64. 'Not really. But now I know where they are NOT.'

Good. That was the purpose of the post. Your response was fairly predictable. But thank you for the confirmation of what I already thought. It was already clear we have different priorities.

Your lack of interest in the lies of the media that has covered up stories to protect this administration and your claim that those who draw attention to it, are suffering from paranoia, is interesting to say the least. It reveals that you are unaware of, or don't care about the fact that several have admitted to doing just that, the most recent being the NYT's admission of 'sitting on' a very important story for a year at the request of the WH. That's what happens when you put all your energy into one small story, I suppose. You miss the more important stories.

A word of advice, which you may take or leave. It's clear you have a particular hatred for one individual and that you would like to get support for your own personal vendetta against him. To be honest, it was the vitriol that swung support for the object of your hatred over to him, maybe undeservedly, who knows?

But people generally are turned off by this kind of vitriol and will often turn their support to the object of it, whose perceived 'sins' shrink in comparison to those of the attackers. So, if you want to get support in the future, try doing it without personal attacks.

Your introduction of what seems to be of paramount importance to you, into this topic, eg, made it very apparent that you have an unhealthy interest in someone presumably you do not even know.

The vicious attacks against Clinton didn't work either, he ended up leaving office with one of the highest approval ratings in history. That had a lot to do with the distaste people generally have for personal attacks on others. The tactic tends to backfire and in a way, maybe serve as a cover for the vicim of the attacks, who may actually be in need of some constructive criticism.

As to Thomas Jefferson, you might want to read more of his writings. It's not so difficult to conclude that he and the other founding fathers would certainly have applauded the efforts of the small liberal blogs that have sprung up over the past several years, like TO.

edited to add: I do like your sigline!

[arwalden]

70. ~

<< Good. That was the purpose of the post. >>

Actually, when you think about it, it's not that good. But you actually have to think about it first.

<< Your response was fairly predictable. >>

People generally resort to the "oh-how-predictable-you-are" retort when they have little else to offer. It indicates a position of weakness. They often act as if they are somehow "above it all" yet... still... here they are... kicking up dust, slinging mud, getting all dirty.

Very amusing.

<< But thank you for the confirmation of what I already thought. >>

Your sincerity is highly suspect. As is the psychological insight you're pretending to have.

<< It was already clear we have different priorities. >>

Apparently it wasn't.

<< Your lack of interest in the lies of the media that has covered up stories to protect this administration and your claim that those who draw attention to it, are suffering from paranoia, is interesting to say the least. >>

I have yet to see any evidence that confirms such a belief.

<< It reveals that you are unaware of, or don't care about the fact that several have admitted to doing just that, the most recent being the NYT's admission of 'sitting on' a very important story for a year at the request of the WH. >>

Which story is that? Are they willingly complicit? Or are the afraid?

<< That's what happens when you put all your energy into one small story, I suppose. You miss the more important stories. >>

I wouldn't have any first-hand knowledge of that theory. I assume you're speaking from some sort of personal experience, or paranoia. I don't know, just a guess.

<< A word of advice, which you may take or leave. >>

I generally find that unsolicited advice is seldom as valuable as the person offering it believes it to be.

<< It's clear you have a particular hatred for one individual and that you would like to get support for your own personal vendetta against him. >>

Why don't you just say what you mean? Enough of this "clever" sideways talking and dancing around what you really want to say. For Pete's sake, just say it!

You assume much about me (and incorrectly I might add) when you cleverly suggest that I have a "vendetta" against some nameless individual.

<< To be honest, it was the vitriol that swung support for the object of your hatred over to him, maybe undeservedly, who knows? >>

Vitriol? Oh brother! The "object of my hatred"?? Give me a fucking break! :eyes: Anyone who believes such a thing is living in a fantasy world.

Anyone whose support "swung" over to this nameless individual for no other reason than the fact that others were critical of the nameless individual... well, that certainly demonstrates to me their exceedingly LOW standards in determining WHY or WHO or WHAT deserves their support.

Such reasoning is absurd.

<< But people generally are turned off by this kind of vitriol and will often turn their support to the object of it >>

Only the ones who cannot think for themselves, or who allow their emotional brain to rule over their logical brain. Too bad for them. Personally I rely on facts instead of rooting for the "victimized underdog". Trust me, the "nameless person" you keep referring to is no victim. Critical readers and critical thinkers would know this already without it being pointed out to them.


<< whose perceived 'sins' shrink in comparison to those of the attackers. >>

SINS? Attackers? :rofl: Oh, Myrna please! Enough drama!

<< So, if you want to get support in the future, >>

You assume that I want, need, or desire the "support" of others. Why? Not everyone thinks the same way that you do.

<< try doing it without personal attacks. >>

Well, if you see any personal attacks being made by me then you should ALERT ON THEM RIGHT AWAY. Please... alert now, alert often.

I think it would benefit you to take a moment and learn how to discern the difference between what actually qualifies as being a "personal attack". It's clear to me that in your mind, any critical word is considered to be an "attack". People with such delicate sensibilities should probably avoid online discussions, disagreements and arguments.

<< Your introduction of what seems to be of paramount importance to you, into this topic, eg, made it very apparent that you have an unhealthy interest in someone presumably you do not even know. >>

Are you qualified to make such judgments about my mental state? How do you know what's "unhealthy"?? How can you diagnose me? That is a personal attack. (Yet you incorrectly and unfairly chide me for doing that which you yourself are guilty of.)

<< The vicious attacks against Clinton didn't work either, he ended up leaving office with one of the highest approval ratings in history. That had a lot to do with the distaste people generally have for personal attacks on others. >>

First you diagnose me as having "unhealthy" interests... then you accuse me of things I have not done. That's not nice.

<< The tactic tends to backfire and in a way, maybe serve as a cover for the vicim of the attacks, who may actually be in need of some constructive criticism. >>

I think you should save your sanctimonious lecture for someone who actually engages in such personal attacks.

<< As to Thomas Jefferson, you might want to read more of his writings. >>

:patriot: :eyes: Frankly, I hardly think that you're the person to be telling me what I "might want" to be reading.

<< It's not so difficult to conclude that he and the other founding fathers would certainly have applauded the efforts of the small liberal blogs that have sprung up over the past several years, like TO. >>

Not difficult for those with vivid imaginations, I suppose. Since you can't really know for certain what the "founding fathers" would have thought, I can only deduce that you're just projecting, or pretending that your own prejudices (or "values") are also held by them.

<< edited to add: I do like your sigline! >>

Thank you.

[Ladyhawk]

79. FWIW, arwalden, I agree with you.

Too much "cult of personality" around here. :( I guess I shouldn't expect anything different. People are people. :shrug:

[icymist]

11. Ahh, perhaps the old rumors are true!

Let's walk down the DU memory lane! Anyone remember when Condi did a Freudian slip and called B*sh "my husband"? Or the unsubstantiated rumors of hot, kinky sex? Stay tuned!

[Catamount]

26. Yes indeed! Remember it well!

Rhandi brought that up too yesterday, and how someone in the msm had corroborated this story--but she didn't say who!
This is not the same story as the one from the Globe recently, but I do wonder how Gannon fits into all this, now that "shrub's pretty Scotty is gone.
Getting Snow-jobs perhaps?

Laura Flanders talking about this right now on AA!

[stubtoe]

60. Didn't it come out "husboss" or something like that?

too funny!

[madrchsod]

12. there`s been a few of us around here

that spotted his love affair with dark mistress of the night..she gets what she wants-power and he gets what he wants-someone that makes him feel alive and important..an affair made in hell.

[savemefromdumbya]

14. Won't Gannon get jealous?

:evilgrin:

[fooj]

47. Who says that he isn't in on all of the fun?

:evilgrin:

[npincus]

15. it's on Wayne Madsen's blog

against DU rules to post the link... just Google. June 1st and 2nd entries.

(I loved when Randi sang "George and Condi sitting in a tree, K-I-L-L-I-N-G...."

[Catamount]

28. Ohhh--I missed that part!

[papau]

16. Bush's pedophile Mexican whore house sex had only one eyewitness

source, and under the media two source rule never made it into major media.

I know Dem rumors are fair game with no sources other than 2 persons that repeat the same GOP smear memo, but the media has a higher standard if you are smearing the GOP.

I suspect that this rumor will never see the light of day in major media - because the media folks are left leaning liberals with ethics!

[Redstone]

18. Has anyone NOT heard this bullshit?

Enough, already. Please.

Redstone

[savemefromdumbya]

29. Linda Tripp probably

[meow2u3]

19. Condi?! I thought he was having some hot action with.....

Gannon/Guckert! If that is true, then Bush swings both ways--and I'm not talking about his golf game!!

:nuke:

[SPKrazy]

32. I Always Thought It Was Victor Ashe

google bush and victor ashe

I'm afraid to post links as some may be banned by DU

but Ashe is a story that has been out there a long time

Yale roomate

fellow cheerleader

openly gay former mayor of a southern city

ambassador to Luxembourg I believe?

[Catamount]

38. Yeah, I saw those threads in 2004 I think?

They should all just come out and be done with it!

[KAT119]

46. Amb. to Poland-reason* said "Don't forget Poland" in kerry debates

[Catamount]

39. He's looking better all the time!

:puke:

[Minnesota Libra]

24. Remember people lies about war is ok BJ's mean impeachment...............

....anyone know if Condi gave old Georgie a little yet?:rofl:

[Raine]

25. Yes

I have heard this, it's all over the net even on CONservative sites. I believe it cause I have thought it for along time.

[Ilsa]

27. I don't believe the "Pickles has moved out" story...

A friend who lived in DC ages ago had this analysis about the story:

Mayflower is unlikely -- across a narrow one-lane one-way
street on the north side of the hotel are the Washington bureau
offices and studios of ABC News. I suspect that someone from ABC
might have noticed a presidential entourage at the hotel. Also, the
Mayflower faces Connecticut Avenue which is one of the busiest
thoroughfares in D.C. I cannot imagine "the security package" for
Pickles regularly using that street without notice.

[jazzjunkysue]

30. I doubt Pickles uses the front door like we do. Bu no one has caught

her there, yet, and no one has said she's absent from the white house, either.

I'm dying for some validation of this story.

[Samantha]

44. I work one block away from the Mayflower Hotel

It's one of the most beautiful hotels I have ever been in, and it is also where John F. Kennedy had some of his infamous trists. It's elegant, romantic, and historical! in many, many ways. The hotel also has a reputation for impeccable discretion....

[Poiuyt]

31. I have no evidence that this is NOT true

[Catamount]

34. Oh my God! Eeehhhh!

Talk about Terror!

[B Calm]

33. Damn right it's true! Wait till the right wing christians here about this

[Stephanie]

35. Oh please. They want you to believe that.

Otherwise they might have to ban Condi from the upcoming photo-ops.

[ladjf]

40. We are hurting our cause by fiddling with this nonsense about

the Bush Rice sex scandal. I don't think people like Bush have "affairs". They are much too sadistic, crazy and weird to get hooked up with anyone at that level.

[upi402]

42. next you'll tell me that televangelists diddle hookers

sheez
:sarcasm: :spray: :patriot:

[sofa king]

51. Who cares?

I seriously doubt that it will significantly affect America's already ludicrous national security or foreign policy status, so the rumor is of little interest to me. I suggest we leave this one alone and let the elephants kill their own messengers instead.

But if it becomes public in the proper way, it might be the only thing this Worst President Ever has done right. Some of the people who still think the President can do no wrong are almost certainly racists. Won't that be a delicious paradox for them, one which might enlighten them to the myriad other (and far more important) indiscretions of this most criminal Presidency. And this might be asking far too much, but maybe it'll make them rethink their racism.

[immoderate]

58. I agree with your overall "Who cares?" but...

Racists mostly make an exception for white guys screwing black girls. He'd get a pass on that from those who think hypocrisy is a virtue.

--IMM

[sofa king]

75. Sadly, I think you're right.

Still, sometimes one component of hypocrisy is the ability to change one's mind without ever admitting that it changed at all.

I know I've done it. I just can't remember when.

[Nothing Without Hope]

52. ***MUST-SEE PHOTO OF * & CONDI IN THE SACK!!!*** (fake but funny)

(OK, I admit it was from a photoshopping contest - links here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=378224&mesg_id=378718. But don't you know this would be the way it would be? I certainly don't take these rumors seriously, but the imagined scene is just too funny.)

[jazzjunkysue]

65. ROFL!!!

:rofl:

[raysr]

54. "Jungle Fever" BFEE style!

[Marr]

55. Even if this were true, the media would never cover it.

After all, a person's sex life is personal. Eh... I mean- a REPUBLICAN'S sex life is personal.

[ThomWV]

66. I'm Not Sure About That - They Might Jump On It With Two Feet

Because it would sell like hotcakes and that means advertising dollars.

[diamidue]

57. Update

Two things: First, wasn't this reported on the front page of one of the tabloids? If the story is false, wouldn't they face libel problems?

And secondly, Wayne Madsen has now added more - namely the testimony of a one-time professional dominatrix from Nevada who claims Bush is well, a little kinky.

The latter should officially put the story into the "aliens ate my homework" camp.

[NoodleyAppendage]

63. Who cares if it is true or not? It's time to push the rumor at all levels

A whisper campaign about Bush & Condi, even if untrue, would be damaging in certain areas of the country given to racism and puritanical thought (i.e., South). So, who cares if it's true or not? I'm all for starting the rumor mill just to plant the seed of doubt in the tiny minds of Shrub supporters.

I think I'll do my part tomorrow to bring it up around the water cooler at work.

J

[genieroze]

68. Having two wives is hard werk, hehehe

[Junkdrawer]

72. Old Joke: What's the penalty for bigamy?

Two wives.

[RebelOne]

69. Someone called into Washington Journal on C-Span

this morning and brought this topic up and of course, the host had no knowledge of it.

[johnaries]

73. But, what about Jeff? n/t

[foreverdem]

77. Does this mean?

That he'll finally get a blow job so we can impeach him? Disgusting visual, I know, sorry for that.

[MetaTrope]

78. How many bedrooms does the White House have?

Surely the Secret Service could manage to keep Laura locked away in one of them, rather than risking the street crossing to a hotel?