Bush's search for clean Cuban hookers goes awry
 

Bush's search for clean Cuban hookers goes awry
By Ashlee Vance, The Register

Cuban prostitutes have received an unwelcome compliment from President Bush courtesy of an Internet search gone wrong.

Earlier this month, Bush launched an attack against Fidel Castro and his alleged promotion of sex tourism in Cuba. Our fearless leader dug way back to a 1992 speech given by Castro to prove his case.

"The dictator welcomes sex tourism," Bush told a room of law enforcement officials in Florida, according to the Los Angeles Times. "Here's how he bragged about the industry," Bush said. "This is his quote: 'Cuba has the cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.'"

As it turns out, Bush had lifted that quotation not from an actual Castro speech but rather from a 2001 essay written by then Dartmouth University undergraduate Charles Trumbull. In the essay, Trumbull did appear to quote a Castro speech about prostitution. Sadly, the student made the quotation up.


Reprinted from The Register:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07...cuban_hookers/

What's your point?

His point is that Democrats have the support of escort services, hookers, and strip clubs in the upcoming election.

-Rudey

Yeah, I have to agree with this.

However, did this kid that wrote the essay with this "quote" say in his paper that it was fictitious?

Come to think of it, I do recall that story where strip clubs were having voter registration drives to support Kerry.

Just posted to show how inept the Bush Admin is on research or checking facts.

Makes me wonder if this scenario occured:

2001 Bush google search: "How To Go To War"
result: student paper on reasons to invade Iraq.

What makes you think that Bush, any President, or any high ranking public or private official does his own research or fact checking? If that indeed was a mistake (which I don't see how that article proves anything), then the fault technically lies with Bush as the supervisor, but to say that "He doesn't do good research" would be inaccurate.

You've made a million claims that people have shot down on here - the latest being that there is someone running against Obama and he doesn't have that much name recognition. The President has speech writers just like most politicians, you don't. Pot meet kettle.

-Rudey

When I lie nobody dies. When Bush lies- Soldiers die. big difference.

:rolleyes:

Yes and no. That is an unfair statement. Bush is the Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, he is in charge of the U.S. Armed Forces, the CEO so to speak. He is not involved in the detailed processes of conflict. Think: Chain of Command.

BTW, what's your point? In war, people die. Plain and simple.

Do you always have nothing to say?

Are you that uncreative that you copy other people?

And if this was about saving lives, removing a mass murderer who killed hundreds of thousands is insignificant to you huh? I guess Iraqi blood is cheap to you. Sad.

Lied? Well perhaps you should read the definition of lie.

And hey do you ever stay on track? Or perhaps you just post a bunch of BS on the web and side track every argument because your education was lacking and you realize you're embarassing yourself.

-Rudey

Dictionary.com gives two definitions for lie (v):

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Please enlighten us as to what the 9/11 commission, etc. is unaware of. Also, please cc your response to them. I'm sure they'd love to know what Bush lied about.

I have to say that if the President of the United States is going to say something -- or particularly quote something -- which has a negative connotation, the speech writer better have it right.

As for fault, in the long run where did that Buck stop? If the President believes it and says it, he has just taken responsibility for it.

Blame the speech writer if you want, but this kind of thing could have serious consequences and it all comes back to the President, who the scribe works for after all.

I think the fact checkers might have been more rigorous if it were something other than slamming Castro in front of Cuban refugees.