Evidence that Bush Sr hates atheists.

[Upchurch]

I agree that there is nothing in the link that would constitute conclusive proof that the interview occured or occured as reported.

The most potentially damning thing I saw was on the 19th page of the second fax (http://www.robsherman.com/advocacy/bush/secondfax.pdf), which says in part:

Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology, I think the best course is to ignore this follow up correspondence; continuing to exchange letters would only make it increasingly obvious that we are refusing to address the issue he is raising.

Lots of denials there, but its that very last bit about "refusing to address the issue" that gives me the impression that there is something to avoid talking about.

Nothing concrete, of course.

 

[whitefork]

The story's been repeated many times but there doesn't seem to be any other evidence than the original source - I read the PDF files and they didn't really provide much supporting evidence.
I would not be surprised if GHWB did say it, or didn't.
Unlike "kicked a little ass" which was SAVED FOR POSTERITY (tm)

 

[bjb]

And there we have it. Evidence that they are refusing to address whether it happened or not, evidence that they feel they can't defend the remarks if it was said, but no admittal that it was said. I can see this exact same letter written whether or not Lund knew Bush made those remarks or not. I certainly see no evidence that anyone even tried to verify whether they were said or not, and I see no evidence that any of this was ever seen by Bush. Standard PR, brush it under the rug and hope it goes away.

You are misinterpreting those words.

That quote from Lund does not address whether the remarks were made or not. It also does not deny that they were made.

Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology

It only states that:

1. The remarks cannot be defended

2. Apologizing for the remarks is not recommended

An apology is not recommended, but if the remarks were not made, why even consider an apology? A denial should have been an option if Lund felt that Bush never made the statement in the first place.

The document shows that Lund investigated the remarks because he determined they could not be defended. He could not have made this determination without knowing what was said. He also believed the remarks were bad enough that an apology was being considered as a solution to the problem.

Finally, I see no words of denial in Lund's writing. Could someone point out his denial to me?

 

[roger]

You are misinterpreting those words.

That quote from Lund does not address whether the remarks were made or not. It also does not deny that they were made. <snip>

We must be talking in different languages I agree with what you wrote, and as far as I can tell so does the language of the post you are 'disagreeing' with. I'm at a loss as to why you are challenging my posts, when we apparently think the same thing.

 

[Grammatron]

You are misinterpreting those words.

That quote from Lund does not address whether the remarks were made or not. It also does not deny that they were made.

Because I do not believe that we can defend the remarks allegedly made during the campaign, and because I assume that you would not recommend that the President issue an apology

It only states that:

1. The remarks cannot be defended

2. Apologizing for the remarks is not recommended

An apology is not recommended, but if the remarks were not made, why even consider an apology? A denial should have been an option if Lund felt that Bush never made the statement in the first place.

The document shows that Lund investigated the remarks because he determined they could not be defended. He could not have made this determination without knowing what was said. He also believed the remarks were bad enough that an apology was being considered as a solution to the problem.

Finally, I see no words of denial in Lund's writing. Could someone point out his denial to me?

The key word you missed or ignored is allegedly.

 

[thaiboxerken]

All Lund had to say was "President Bush never made the statements." Instead, he lpays a wordgame and then defends the "alleged" statement. This assumes, of course, that Bush didn't make the statement or did make the statement but are sure there is no evidence of it. It seems to me some hedging was happening on part of the White House.

 

[Grammatron]

All Lund had to say was "President Bush never made the statements." Instead, he lpays a wordgame and then defends the "alleged" statement. This assumes, of course, that Bush didn't make the statement or did make the statement but are sure there is no evidence of it. It seems to me some hedging was happening on part of the White House.

Possible.

However, you are assuming one scenario with only evidence being Sherman's words. And lack of any denial from Bush is not evidence enough.

It seems the White House did not know if Bush made the statements or not so they used words like "alleged."

No matter how we try to disect it there is no further evidence Bush made that statement in the papers Sherman posted.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think it would be easy for people in the White House just to ask the President if he said such a thing. The fact that they defended the statement says alot.

 

[Grammatron]

I think it would be easy for people in the White House just to ask the President if he said such a thing. The fact that they defended the statement says alot.

It doesn't say a lot.

I want evidence this was said, what Sherman is presenting to us is "Hey, they don't explicitly deny this, so I am right!" That's not good enough.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The documents ARE evidence, you just don't like it.

 

[Grammatron]

The documents ARE evidence, you just don't like it.

No, I said they are not good enough for conclusion on the subject.

 

[thaiboxerken]

In your opinion, that is the case.

 

[hgc]

Looks to me like we'll never get closer to the truth on this unless a) audio or audio/video evidence emerges or b) another journalist present produces contemporaneous notes corroborating the statement.

So that leaves us with few factors ...

1) You can believe in or not, to whatever degree, Sherman's veracity and accuracy.

2) You can believe or not, to whatever degree, GWHB's propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism.

I don't think that the documents shed much light on the debate. I would bet that all involved on Bush's side didn't even know if he said it or not while strategizing what to do in response to the inquiry, and didn't care. They're just doing a PR job, with the usual regard to truth in such endeavors.

 

[Upchurch]

In your opinion, that is the case.

Mine, too.

What, in your opinion, do you think makes a definitive case that the conversation actually took place as reported?

 

[Jocko]

2) You can believe or not, to whatever degree, GWHB's propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism.

While I, too, don't have any reason to doubt such a remark being made, I think the fact that Bush 41 was president for four years without establishing so much as a single athiest extermination camp says a lot, as well.

A remark is one thing. A "propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism" is quite another... if there was any such propensity, surely a concrete example could be found? A policy mention? A memo? An copy of the exploratory committee's minutes? Anything?

So Bush and athiests don't like each other. It's not like that's anyone's biggest beef with him anyway.

 

[Jocko]

The documents ARE evidence, you just don't like it.

I agree. They are evidence. They support a hypothesis.

However, they're not conclusive evidence; they're not proof.

The good news is, I don't think much of anyone is going to doubt that such a thing certainly could have been said, proven or not.

 

[hgc]

While I, too, don't have any reason to doubt such a remark being made, I think the fact that Bush 41 was president for four years without establishing so much as a single athiest extermination camp says a lot, as well.

A remark is one thing. A "propensity to apply a religious test to citizenship and patriotism" is quite another... if there was any such propensity, surely a concrete example could be found? A policy mention? A memo? An copy of the exploratory committee's minutes? Anything?

So Bush and athiests don't like each other. It's not like that's anyone's biggest beef with him anyway.

Well, I guess we know where you stand on Bush's propensity, but a belief in it doesn't depend on such extreme measures as extermination camps and concrete policies. It could just be not well thought out notions arising from a lot of religious people's attitudes towards atheists -- no moral grounding and the such. This is why I stated above that if he said it, then it was probably because he was caught off-guard by the question and let his true silliness fly. That's the prepensity toward religious tests I refer to -- his private opinion, not his governing policy.

 

[roger]

Here's an interesting interview with his son, where he seems to allude to the quote: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050111-101004-3771r.htm

"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person," Mr. Bush said. "I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is.

Who can tell what his "just the way it is" means? That he thinks you are not patriotic, or that he never would never say or act like that?

And yes, I recognize this is the son, not the father, and doesn't directly bear on the issue of Sherman. Just found it interesting.

 

[roger]

Here's some stuff in the Washington Monthly where they try to verify the quote: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_03/008488.php

Upshot: a couple of reporters have tried to verify it and failed. By Sherman's own account, only he and Bush heard the conversation.

And as we see in the faxes, Bush and his office have never responded to Sherman, and explicitly state that it is not in their interests to do so. Surmise what you will from that, we have no solid evidence besides Sherman's original claim.

 

[Grammatron]

Upshot: a couple of reporters have tried to verify it and failed. By Sherman's own account, only he and Bush heard the conversation.

First I hear of this, where did you get that info from?