Bush on tape

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on June 10th, 2017 at 04:30 am

An alleged friend of George W. Bush who recorded Bush in private conversations several years ago has played some of those tapes to the New York Times. Bush emerges extremely well; to the Times’ surprise, the private George is wholly consistent with public George. And his opinions on the UN and the media are fascinating …

UPDATE. Tolerant San Francisco chefs reject a White House cooking role:

The idea of going to the White House drew guffaws from many local chefs, staunch Democrats who say they would not serve even if asked.

(Via Andrew T. Lloyd)

Posted by Tim B. on 02/20/2005 at 06:42 AM
    1. Yep. It’ll take the NYT about 48 hours to realize they can write it off as “Bush lacks nuance”. Heh.

      Posted by Aaron – Freewill on 2005 02 20 at 07:44 AM • permalink


    1. “…[A]lleged friend…” indeed!

      Posted by nofixedabode on 2005 02 20 at 08:12 AM • permalink


    1. Perhaps Andrew Sullivan also might realize that Bush has a principled opposition to gay marriage; that he’s not just cynically bashing gays for political points with the Christian Right and that in fact he refused to do so.

      Oh, hell. We all know Karl Rove planted these tapes./LLL

      Posted by JDB on 2005 02 20 at 09:45 AM • permalink


    1. “And in exchanges about his handling of questions from the news media about his past, Mr. Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana.”

      Good god. These people are such—I don’t even know what to call them. It’s actually kind of pathetic how desperate they are to pin any sort of off-color activity on Bush. They’ll say they’re just “bringing him down to earth” or “making him more human” or something. As for that “friend” of his—what kind of friend “secretly tapes” conversations? There’s a reason why envy is one of the seaven deadly sins.

      Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 02 20 at 11:28 AM • permalink


    1. Well, before I buy into this, I’ll need the tapes authenticated by the blogosphere. 😉

      Posted by Salt Lick on 2005 02 20 at 01:00 PM • permalink


    1. You know, this has all the earmarks of a Rove plot—once again, something intended to smear Bush ends up helping him.  What have we learned today, kiddies?

      1) Bush is fairly tolerant toward gays, despite the crowd who want to paint him as an American Taliban.

      2) Bush tried marijuana, the yawn this produces thus inoculating him against worse accusations.

      3) The New York Times will stoop to anything.

      Final score, Rove 3, MSM/LLL, 0.

      Posted by Mike G on 2005 02 20 at 01:11 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmm.

      I’d also suggest comparing this with the whole Gannon “scandal”.  Bush comes off as a decent man who isn’t anti-gay, but does have reservations about gay marriage, while the LLL shows how they really feel about gays.

      Man the liberals really are eating their own.  Can we start calling them “Eaters of the Dead” yet?

      Posted by memomachine on 2005 02 20 at 01:43 PM • permalink


    1. Tolerant San Francisco chefs?? If one were, perchance, to end up in the White House they’d need to hire a swag of food tasters.
      It’s a nice story though,

      If nominated I will not fry!
      If elected I will not bake!

      Posted by Boss Hog on 2005 02 20 at 02:03 PM • permalink


    1. I think George Bush’s tolerance pretty much ends well short of nouvelle cuisine anyway…

      Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 02 20 at 03:30 PM • permalink


    1. They made it a front page story and it didn’t even have any real dirt in it.

      Let’s expect to hear about violations of confidences from the crowd that trashed Linda Tripp.

      Posted by Attila on 2005 02 20 at 05:21 PM • permalink


    1. I have yet to read one article about these tapes in which the reporter points out that it is illegal in the States to record a person’s phone conversations without their consent.

      IMO, Doug Wead – the so-called “friend” – is an unprincipled snake in the grass!  I wonder how much the NYT paid him for those tapes?

      Posted by Sylvan on 2005 02 20 at 06:52 PM • permalink


    1. It is not always illegal to record conversation without consent – it depends on the state.  Some states are one party consent states, some are two.  The Tripp-Lewinsky tapes were in a two party consent state and that is why it was illegal.  In the article, it said Wead made sure he was in a state where it was legal (one party consent).

      No real friend would do that, though.

      Posted by kathy on 2005 02 20 at 07:27 PM • permalink


    1. “IMO, Doug Wead – the so-called “friend�? – is an unprincipled snake in the grass!”

      My feelings exactly. I hope he enjoys his 15 mins., because I doubt anyone will be hiring him as a consultant on anything. Or, if they do they’ll have him strip searched before each meeting.

      Says in the article that Wead was a pastor at one time. I’d never want him to be my pastor, I couldn’t trust him.

      Only good thing is that from the tapes we see that Bush is the same in private as he is in person.

      Posted by CJosephson on 2005 02 20 at 08:39 PM • permalink


    1. In a Lois Bujold story, Mark has been separated from his parents since birth. When he meets them he is confused, because his upbringing has been in a very bad environment. At one point he inadvertently eavesdrops, to hear his mother and father discussing him in precisely the same terms as they had used in addressing him. He has an epiphany: So that’s what integrity is. I never knew.

      I don’t think the NYT is that intelligent.


      Posted by Ric Locke on 2005 02 20 at 09:14 PM • permalink


    1. Ive actually seen Doug Wead speak at a convention, and he is genuinely brilliant, funny and honest.
      He Founded/co-founded one of the charity organisations that played a major part in providing aid to cambodia after Pol-Pot.
      As for him taping these conversations, given that he recently wrote a book on the children of presidents and their lives, I think his explanation is fair enough,

      Mr. Wead said he recorded his conversations with the president in part because he thought he might be asked to write a book for the campaign. He also wanted a clear account of any requests Mr. Bush made of him. But he said his main motivation in making the tapes, which he originally intended to be released only after his own death, was to leave the nation a unique record of Mr. Bush.

      “I believe that, like him or not, he is going to be a huge historical figure,” Mr. Wead said. “If I was on the telephone with Churchill or Gandhi, I would tape record them too.”

      even if his actions were a little odd.

      Posted by RhikoR on 2005 02 21 at 02:34 AM • permalink


    1. The ABC’s AM program this morning worked hard to make the Marijiuana segment look bad for Bush.
      But then, this is part of the msm that even wants to make Travel Advisory notices look bad for the Australian Government.
      They spent a huge amount of effort on them after the Bali bombing (trying to make out that the government really should have warned more precisely), and now are going troppo again re Aceh.
      The Sydney Morning Herald is running the hedging operation, saying that the government is overdoing the warnings, and that Indonesia (surprise, surprise) does not think there is any risk!
      Just for the record, any msm people reading this: – don’t play with scissors, particularly do not poke them into live power points, ok? Nor should you go to any place where it is bleeding obvious that there is danger. You have been warned.
      So, when anything comes up about Bush, Blair, or Howard, you can rely on the ABC and SMH to use it as a bat to beat them around the head.
      Why are the Blogs getting bigger and more worrying to the msm?
      Because we are not getting proper news reporting from the msm.

      Posted by blogstrop on 2005 02 21 at 07:56 AM • permalink


    1. Kathy – I need to look into those recording laws; I thought they were Federal.  If what you say is correct, I wonder which state’s laws are applicable if the recorded phone conversation is intra-state, between states with different laws about such things?

      I’d better get my virtual Wellies on before I go Googling into THAT legal quagmire, eh?!

      Posted by Sylvan on 2005 02 21 at 09:14 PM • permalink


    1. I’d better get my virtual Wellies on before I go Googling into THAT legal quagmire, eh?!

      Definitely. I may be totally wrong, but it seems to me that this exact issue came up after Paul Jones made the Monica Lewinsky tapes, I believe they determined that the laws of the party that makes the tape apply. I could be way off base though.

      Some states also don’t interpret their laws in the way you’d expect: For example, Illinois was thought to require consent for years and many websites operate on that assumption, but the courts overturned a case under that law on the basis that neither party to a phone call can ‘eavesdrop’ on their own call, and ‘eavesdrop’ is the word used in the law.


      Posted by Aaron – Freewill on 2005 02 21 at 09:32 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmmmm… *evil Rove-like plot formulating*…

      You know what would drive the NYT totally buggy?

      Letters to the editor gushing over how wonderful he was to print a story exposing what a truly WONDERFUL man President Bush is, so perfectly timed in with his trip to Europe 😉


      Posted by mamapajamas on 2005 02 22 at 06:47 AM • permalink


    1. David Frum said what I said (Post 10) only of course he said it much better:

      I think “The New York Times�? and ABC, which are promoting this guy, owe Linda Tripp a big apology.

      Via TKS at NRO

      Posted by Attila on 2005 02 22 at 01:40 PM • permalink


Page 1 of 1 pages