Sharon Bush Denies Kitty Kelley Account By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, September 9, 2004 President Bush's former sister-in-law denied yesterday that she had given author Kitty Kelley any information about allegations of past drug use by Bush. Sharon Bush is quoted in Kelley's forthcoming book about the Bush family as making one of the allegations, and Kelley's editor said in an interview Tuesday that she had provided "confirmation" for the information. But Sharon Bush, who is divorced from the president's brother Neil, said in a statement: "I categorically deny that I ever told Kitty Kelley that George W. Bush used cocaine at Camp David or that I ever saw him use cocaine at Camp David. When Kitty Kelley raised drug use at Camp David, I responded by saying something along the lines of, 'Who would say such a thing?' "Although there have been tensions between me and various members of the Bush family, I cannot allow this falsehood to go unchallenged." Sharon Bush's attorney, David Berg, said from Texas yesterday that his client had never given Kelley a formal interview. He said the two women spoke when Bush, who was in financial difficulty during the divorce, asked Kelley to put her in touch with a speakers' bureau, though in the end Bush never made any speeches. "She talked to Kitty Kelley and there was an agreement that she would not be quoted or used as a source," Berg said. "This was totally off the record." Bush was "surprised and shocked" when Kelley raised the drug question, he said. "She did tell Kitty Kelley that she felt the Bush family was being hypocritical about the so-called family values issue" in light of the way she was treated in the divorce, Berg said. "She regrets ever having spoken to her. This is really below the belt." Berg said yesterday Sharon Bush would not agree to be interviewed about the dispute.
Sharon Bush, supposedly a key source for the book, is denying she ever told Kelley Bush used coke at Camp David. "Although there have been tensions between me and various members of the Bush family, I cannot allow this falsehood to go unchallenged," she said. Nonetheless, "Doubleday, the book's publisher and part of the Random House division of Bertelsmann, said it stood by Ms. Kelley's reporting. The publisher said in a statement that Ms. Kelly met with Ms. Bush for a four-hour lunch on April 1, 2003, where an unnamed third party heard the conversation, and that Ms. Kelley's editor, Peter Gethers, discussed the same material with Ms. Bush over the phone." "Lou Colasuonno, a former publicist for Ms. Bush, confirmed that he was the third party at the lunch and contradicted her denial. "I have not seen the book, I have only seen news reports," Mr. Colasuonno said. "According to what I have seen, what has been reported, I would not dispute that.""
One problem with this reversal by Sharon and attack meme from BushCo: other sources. That other source is most likely the aforementioned Lou Colasuonno. More...
She said, she said. I'm going to keep an open mind on this issue. The real problem here is 527 organizations. (LOVING this)
I thought the issue was whether Clinton got a hummer in the Oval Office? Damn, it's hard to keep track of what I should be concerned about...
Sharon Bush, the alleged source for the drug quote, says she never said it. End of story. Whatever a third party "thinks" they heard is irrelevant because the first person SOURCE denies it. This, combined with the faked documents on CBS, will sink Kerry faster than the Swifties did.
God, it pains me to say this. It really does. Father, forgive me for what I am about to do. Please, guys, take it easy on me. But I kind of agree with Ian. I don't think it will make a damn bit of difference re: Kerry, though. Bush is going to take a beating from legitimate news sources in the upcoming days, which he well deserves, but Kitty Kelley should not be taken seriously. Kitty Kelley is someone who has proven to be about as trustworthy as the National Enquirer.
I'm not saying Dubya smoked crack with his friend Bin Laden in the Oval Office while his Dad was President. I'm saying, we just don't know.
4 things 1. That's not how it works - in investigative reporting (books or journalism) a qualifying, confirmatory source is usually needed in the absence of direct confirmation. (Tape, video.) The fact that Kelley has one, and the fact that this person is on the record about the quote is worse news for S. Bush than it is for Kelley. (http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/230350p-197775c.html) That's how it works in investigative reporting, otherwise every interviewee would disavow anything controversial s/he said immediately after the interview. If one person says something and 2 people confirm they heard it, that's good enough for not only investigative reporting, but also a court of law, no matter what the interviewee says later. This will be more trouble for S. Bush. Let's see how quickly she takes up the slander/libel cudgel. That'll be one test. Random House will not publish something that will cost them huge amounts of money, and more importantly, a loss of reputation. 2. The CBS documents to which you are referring - are they the ones released by the White House last February? The ones which Paul Lukasiak has spent the last 5-6 months reviewing? http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/09/bush_guard_duty/ 3. Kitty Kelley has been researching her book for well over a year, long before Kerry had even officially entered the Democratic primaries. Do you have a source for a connection between Kelley and Kerry? 4. I think the only thing the Swifties ever sunk were their own reputations and credibility. Is there anyone who continues to take them seriously, now that they have been exposed?
I'm guessing you mean 'desperation'? Glad to see, however, that your arguments are persuasive, fact-laden and, overall, well-thought out.
Yes because BenReilly is a Rightwing fanatic and Bush supporter Youre talking about an individual who likely has pin ups of Richard Gephardt hanging above his bed. oh and spellsmack was real mature.. good to see the level of your discourse
If you have the time, I can send you more material to proofread. We are talking about Kitty Kelley, quoting an ex-in-law. The same Kitty Kelley that accused RR of being a rapist?
Work is a little slow these days - just might take you up on the proofreading offer........... Reread my post. I was not defending Kitty Kelley. I was explaining how the reporting process works, and as she's printing the S. Bush story, then she has the goods on her. Random House are standing behind her (Kelley) and that's bad news for S. Bush. Again, it does not mean that W was partaking of Colombian marching powder, just that S. Bush says he did. But too often interviewees claim they were misquoted, taken out of context, etc., etc. Kitty Kelley, her reputation notwithstanding, is too long in the tooth and too long in the game to print something like that without backup. Again this is not a defense of her, but a reply to the original post which claimed that if S. Bush said she did not say something, then it's game over. It's not. She made an allegation (which she believed/knew to be true) to a seasoned (muckraker) journalist and now she looking to take it back, claiming, never said that, misquote, out of context, whatever. Kitty Kelley has her notes, a corroborating witness, a follow-up phone call and Random House to back her up. As I said earlier, that's not only good enough for reporting, but also a court of law. S. Bush is in trouble - either she said it or she didn't. She claims that she now didn't say it, but there is the corroboration, so therefore if W were of a mind, he could sue S. Bush for defamation assuming that the statement was untrue )) and, you know what, Kitty Kelley's notes and reporting would be acceptable evidence against S. Bush! Again, let's see how quickly she goes to court for redress, but she's in trouble. And of course there is also possibility that she said it, knowing it to be untrue, but because she was pissed off with the Bush clan in general with the way her divorce was going. That's actionable; no matter how you spin, S. Bush's lawyers will be earning more than their retainers in the coming months. And to reiterate, I'm not necessarily defending Kitty Kelley, but explaining how the system works.