Full Version: George W Bush: In recovery?
In the I Hate Bush! thread, Hugo made the following observation:
I felt that responding to these statements there would've been too much of a stretch for the topic - hence, this thread.
We definitely know that George W. Bush was a cocaine user. Bush himself has avoided answering the question directly about seven different ways, including the hypocritical "I think it's important for leaders, and parents, not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it.'" Well, if Governor Bush hadn't tried it, he wouldn't have to worry about those "mixed signals", would he? Bush did, at least, swear that he hadn't done any cocaine for up to fifteen years prior to his presidential bid (and, unequivocally, for seven years).
The now dead J.H. Hatfield found three independent sources who confirmed that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession (and did a year's worth of community service - which Bush admits, though he won't say why) and several witnesses, including frat brothers from his college days, who have attested to doing a variety of drugs with Bush - including cocaine. Bush may not have been an addict, but most spoiled affluent white boys that I have known do nothing in moderation. And, if his relationship to alcohol is anything to go by, we are definitely dealing with an addictive personality.
There's a very strong case for Bush's alcoholism - even if he is in official denial. A Newsweek profile by Evan Thomas, describing his college years, says he "seems to have majored in beer drinking at the Deke House." After his first company failed, "Bush spent a lot of time in bars, trying to sort out who he was. He had a kind of ragged nervous energy in that period, and he could be a bully."
He was admittedly at least a moderate drinker for more than twenty years and, at times, a heavy drinker. And, of course, after repeated lies, he finally came clean about the DUI arrest when he was thirty years old. In his autobiography, Bush states "I am a person who enjoys life, and for years, I enjoyed having a few drinks. But gradually, drinking began to compete with my energy. I'd be a step slower getting up. My daily runs seemed harder after a few too many drinks the night before." In 1986, at the insistence of his wife, Laura - and with the intervention of Rev. Billy Graham - he swore off all drinking forever.
There has been some debate over whether George W Bush was dependent on alcohol or merely suffered alcohol abuse - and the president himself insists that he wasn't "clinically" an alcoholic. But if one looks at the standard questionnaires used to determine alcohol dependence (or alcoholism) - here's one - one finds that, on the basis of the public record alone, Bush would have to answer yes to at least four or five questions out of twenty. If one answers "yes" to three or more of these questions, it is likely that that person is alcohol dependent.
Salon.com had an interesting article on the question of Bush's alcoholism for the fifteenth anniversary of his sobriety - written by an alcoholic in recovery. It's an interesting read. Among other things, the author suggests that Bush may be a "dry drunk", one who has stopped drinking, but not addressed the underlying problems.
Prof. Katherine van Wormer, who specializes in substance abuse and addiction, also feels that Bush is a "dry drunk" - which she defines as "a former alcoholic who stopped drinking but still thinks obsessively". In her article, cited at CommonDreams and several other places, she states that
There are several symptoms of the addict apparent in Bush's behavior even today - apart from those mentioned by Prof. van Wormer. According to Richard Blow, former editor of George, "Bush finds complexity intimidating; sometimes his sarcastic talk seems to mask a kind of mental insecurity." He lacks curiosity and he resists discussion about abstract subjects. He cannot manage much more than a six-hour work day and, admittedly, has difficulty concentrating. His incoherence and inability to string a sentence together when not on script is infamously well-documented - in these threads and everywhere else in the world. His shortness of temper and insensitivity have also been broadly reported.
Most surprising of all (to me, at least), was a revelation in The Washington Post well over a year ago:
I did a bit of research and discovered that "multimodality" or "multimediality" teaching is generally used with slow learners or the mentally retarded - it is also the approach used to treat school children with ADHD. Generally, multimodality teaching uses visual aids as well as text (the Post article mentions the use of video and pictures in Bush's PDB) or simple questions and answers regarding comprehension - or, again, according to the former White House official, Bush "processes information better through questions and answers while reading along".
Has Bush always been a slow learner? Does this also account for his seeming inability to construct intelligible sentences? Or is this perhaps evidence of some sort of brain damage as a result of chronic alcoholism or worse? Inother words, does our president not read newspapers because he doesn't have to - or because he can't?
If nothing else, if the man is not an alcoholic, why did he have to swear off drink permanently? Is that, of itself, not at least an admission of a pretty severe problem?
In a sense, I hope that President Bush is an alcoholic and/or cocaine addict in recovery. That would at least account for much of his behavior, some of his policies, his lethargy, his language difficulties, and his apparent learning disability. If he is not an alcoholic and/or drug addict in recovery, then I can only assume that he is so intellectually challenged that he would have to have come by his MBA dishonestly and is an obsessive-compulsive borderline psychotic with sociopathic tendencies.
To speak entirely subjectively, I have lived with an alcohol abuser for many years. I have raised a son who was a drug addict, now in recovery. I have put in a couple hundred hours of volunteer work with addicts in various rehab centers. I have tried just about every substance going from caffeine to heroin - including Bush's drugs of choice, alcohol and cocaine - and can easily see the allure of these substances and understand how one could develop a physiological or psychological dependence on them. I feel, at this point in my life, that I can recognize addictive behaviour when I see it. When I look at George W Bush, I see an addict. I do not judge him for it as a man. But some addicts in recovery are more able, less damaged than others - and in President Bush I see inability and damage.
So: Do you feel that the evidence - both recorded and behavioral - suggests that George W Bush is an addictive personality who may have had a dependence on alcohol, cocaine, or both?
If so, do you feel that this affects either his ability to make decisions or his overall policy (his seeming obsession with Iraq, for example)? If not, how do you account for the public record, his admissions and evasions, his behavior in general, and his need for "multi-modality" briefings? Was he merely, as he claims, "young and irresponsible when [he] was young and irresponsible" (until his fortieth year), eschewing alcohol due only to religious conversion?
In short, is George W Bush an addict in recovery - and does this affect his performance as president?
QUOTE(Hugo @ Dec 8 2003, 07:50 PM)
I think the accusations that Bush was a cocaine addict have no basis in fact. The claims he was an alcoholic are unproven.
I felt that responding to these statements there would've been too much of a stretch for the topic - hence, this thread.
We definitely know that George W. Bush was a cocaine user. Bush himself has avoided answering the question directly about seven different ways, including the hypocritical "I think it's important for leaders, and parents, not to send mixed signals. I don't want some kid saying, 'Well, Governor Bush tried it.'" Well, if Governor Bush hadn't tried it, he wouldn't have to worry about those "mixed signals", would he? Bush did, at least, swear that he hadn't done any cocaine for up to fifteen years prior to his presidential bid (and, unequivocally, for seven years).
The now dead J.H. Hatfield found three independent sources who confirmed that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession (and did a year's worth of community service - which Bush admits, though he won't say why) and several witnesses, including frat brothers from his college days, who have attested to doing a variety of drugs with Bush - including cocaine. Bush may not have been an addict, but most spoiled affluent white boys that I have known do nothing in moderation. And, if his relationship to alcohol is anything to go by, we are definitely dealing with an addictive personality.
There's a very strong case for Bush's alcoholism - even if he is in official denial. A Newsweek profile by Evan Thomas, describing his college years, says he "seems to have majored in beer drinking at the Deke House." After his first company failed, "Bush spent a lot of time in bars, trying to sort out who he was. He had a kind of ragged nervous energy in that period, and he could be a bully."
He was admittedly at least a moderate drinker for more than twenty years and, at times, a heavy drinker. And, of course, after repeated lies, he finally came clean about the DUI arrest when he was thirty years old. In his autobiography, Bush states "I am a person who enjoys life, and for years, I enjoyed having a few drinks. But gradually, drinking began to compete with my energy. I'd be a step slower getting up. My daily runs seemed harder after a few too many drinks the night before." In 1986, at the insistence of his wife, Laura - and with the intervention of Rev. Billy Graham - he swore off all drinking forever.
There has been some debate over whether George W Bush was dependent on alcohol or merely suffered alcohol abuse - and the president himself insists that he wasn't "clinically" an alcoholic. But if one looks at the standard questionnaires used to determine alcohol dependence (or alcoholism) - here's one - one finds that, on the basis of the public record alone, Bush would have to answer yes to at least four or five questions out of twenty. If one answers "yes" to three or more of these questions, it is likely that that person is alcohol dependent.
Salon.com had an interesting article on the question of Bush's alcoholism for the fifteenth anniversary of his sobriety - written by an alcoholic in recovery. It's an interesting read. Among other things, the author suggests that Bush may be a "dry drunk", one who has stopped drinking, but not addressed the underlying problems.
Prof. Katherine van Wormer, who specializes in substance abuse and addiction, also feels that Bush is a "dry drunk" - which she defines as "a former alcoholic who stopped drinking but still thinks obsessively". In her article, cited at CommonDreams and several other places, she states that
QUOTE
Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a biblical sense... Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq)...
Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to totally abstain at age 40. About this time, he became a "born-again Christian", going as usual from one extreme to the other.
Bush drank heavily for over 20 years until he made the decision to totally abstain at age 40. About this time, he became a "born-again Christian", going as usual from one extreme to the other.
There are several symptoms of the addict apparent in Bush's behavior even today - apart from those mentioned by Prof. van Wormer. According to Richard Blow, former editor of George, "Bush finds complexity intimidating; sometimes his sarcastic talk seems to mask a kind of mental insecurity." He lacks curiosity and he resists discussion about abstract subjects. He cannot manage much more than a six-hour work day and, admittedly, has difficulty concentrating. His incoherence and inability to string a sentence together when not on script is infamously well-documented - in these threads and everywhere else in the world. His shortness of temper and insensitivity have also been broadly reported.
Most surprising of all (to me, at least), was a revelation in The Washington Post well over a year ago:
QUOTE
Under Bush, the PDB [President's Daily Brief prepared by the CIA] has become shorter, a seven-to-ten-page document containing "more targeted hard intelligence" items, with few longer than a page, according to a former senior intelligence official who was involved in the process. It is written with the understanding that the president is a "multi-modality learner".
I did a bit of research and discovered that "multimodality" or "multimediality" teaching is generally used with slow learners or the mentally retarded - it is also the approach used to treat school children with ADHD. Generally, multimodality teaching uses visual aids as well as text (the Post article mentions the use of video and pictures in Bush's PDB) or simple questions and answers regarding comprehension - or, again, according to the former White House official, Bush "processes information better through questions and answers while reading along".
Has Bush always been a slow learner? Does this also account for his seeming inability to construct intelligible sentences? Or is this perhaps evidence of some sort of brain damage as a result of chronic alcoholism or worse? Inother words, does our president not read newspapers because he doesn't have to - or because he can't?
If nothing else, if the man is not an alcoholic, why did he have to swear off drink permanently? Is that, of itself, not at least an admission of a pretty severe problem?
In a sense, I hope that President Bush is an alcoholic and/or cocaine addict in recovery. That would at least account for much of his behavior, some of his policies, his lethargy, his language difficulties, and his apparent learning disability. If he is not an alcoholic and/or drug addict in recovery, then I can only assume that he is so intellectually challenged that he would have to have come by his MBA dishonestly and is an obsessive-compulsive borderline psychotic with sociopathic tendencies.
To speak entirely subjectively, I have lived with an alcohol abuser for many years. I have raised a son who was a drug addict, now in recovery. I have put in a couple hundred hours of volunteer work with addicts in various rehab centers. I have tried just about every substance going from caffeine to heroin - including Bush's drugs of choice, alcohol and cocaine - and can easily see the allure of these substances and understand how one could develop a physiological or psychological dependence on them. I feel, at this point in my life, that I can recognize addictive behaviour when I see it. When I look at George W Bush, I see an addict. I do not judge him for it as a man. But some addicts in recovery are more able, less damaged than others - and in President Bush I see inability and damage.
So: Do you feel that the evidence - both recorded and behavioral - suggests that George W Bush is an addictive personality who may have had a dependence on alcohol, cocaine, or both?
If so, do you feel that this affects either his ability to make decisions or his overall policy (his seeming obsession with Iraq, for example)? If not, how do you account for the public record, his admissions and evasions, his behavior in general, and his need for "multi-modality" briefings? Was he merely, as he claims, "young and irresponsible when [he] was young and irresponsible" (until his fortieth year), eschewing alcohol due only to religious conversion?
In short, is George W Bush an addict in recovery - and does this affect his performance as president?
I just took the test and answered positive to five of the questions. 4 of the yeses was from incidences that occurred over 25 years ago. I answered yes to number 12 because yes, I occassionally have a beer or two an hour or so before bedtime to help aid in sleeping. I think this test would label a significant percentage of 18-25 year olds alcoholics. In fact it labels me an alcoholic despite the fact my excessive drinking was confined to when I was under 25, over a generation ago. Of course maybe alcohol abuse is to blame for my simplistic libertarian viewpoints.
Most of your reasoning is based on people's perceptions (I will bet mainly people who oppose him politically) of Bush. What evidence is there that Bush finds complexity intimidating? The statement of an editor of a magazine founded by a Kennedy? He spent a lot of time in bars in his college years? That is hardly rare. Bush's SAT scores indicate he was no where near mentally retarded. I find it highly improbable that excessive drinking over a 20 year time span could lower a man's IQ from 120 to less than 85. I find it highly improbable that Bush could have been fairly successful in his debates with Gore if he was mildly retarded.
Personally, I have little reason to believe that Bush's born again Christianity is sincere. Bush throws a few bones to a segment of his base. the religious right. Bush is an excellent politician, who no doubt abused alcohol up until his 40th birthday. He may well have been an alcoholic. There are plenty of alcoholics who lead successful careers, I am sure ex-alcoholics have a lower handicap than alcoholics. It's been 16 years since he last had a drink, whatever his problems with alcohol were they bear no significance now.
My mother was a special education teacher for 30 years. I have met a lot of mildly retarded people. GW ain't one of them.
A quote from Katherine Wormer:
"On Military Social Service: How disturbed I was to see your article in the September 6 issue about ROTC as a means of providing funds for a college education. The education associated with ROTC is a contradiction to the academic freedom enjoyed at university campuses; military training on college campuses, in fact, makes a mockery of education. For from taking a global view of learning, ROTC encourages narrow patriotism and a philosophy of any means (killing people and polluting environments) to the end. The institutionalized mistreatment of gays and lesbians in the military and sexual harassment of women are par for the course." (signed) Katherine Van Wormer, Professor of Social Work, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Something tells me Katherine's political agenda is somewhat opposed to President Bush's. It seems like Katherines black/white view of the ROTC program could be an indication she is a "dry drunk". The fact she used the word for instead of far could indicate mild retardation.
Of course I'm just an alcoholic who has managed to turn to moderation for a generation, What do I know?
Most of your reasoning is based on people's perceptions (I will bet mainly people who oppose him politically) of Bush. What evidence is there that Bush finds complexity intimidating? The statement of an editor of a magazine founded by a Kennedy? He spent a lot of time in bars in his college years? That is hardly rare. Bush's SAT scores indicate he was no where near mentally retarded. I find it highly improbable that excessive drinking over a 20 year time span could lower a man's IQ from 120 to less than 85. I find it highly improbable that Bush could have been fairly successful in his debates with Gore if he was mildly retarded.
Personally, I have little reason to believe that Bush's born again Christianity is sincere. Bush throws a few bones to a segment of his base. the religious right. Bush is an excellent politician, who no doubt abused alcohol up until his 40th birthday. He may well have been an alcoholic. There are plenty of alcoholics who lead successful careers, I am sure ex-alcoholics have a lower handicap than alcoholics. It's been 16 years since he last had a drink, whatever his problems with alcohol were they bear no significance now.
My mother was a special education teacher for 30 years. I have met a lot of mildly retarded people. GW ain't one of them.
A quote from Katherine Wormer:
"On Military Social Service: How disturbed I was to see your article in the September 6 issue about ROTC as a means of providing funds for a college education. The education associated with ROTC is a contradiction to the academic freedom enjoyed at university campuses; military training on college campuses, in fact, makes a mockery of education. For from taking a global view of learning, ROTC encourages narrow patriotism and a philosophy of any means (killing people and polluting environments) to the end. The institutionalized mistreatment of gays and lesbians in the military and sexual harassment of women are par for the course." (signed) Katherine Van Wormer, Professor of Social Work, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Something tells me Katherine's political agenda is somewhat opposed to President Bush's. It seems like Katherines black/white view of the ROTC program could be an indication she is a "dry drunk". The fact she used the word for instead of far could indicate mild retardation.
Of course I'm just an alcoholic who has managed to turn to moderation for a generation, What do I know?
If he is an adict in recovery that would make sense. Like multiple members of my family who fell in with drink and drugs, he became a Born Again Christian.
I have no doubt that he is no less a person for his prior abuse, he is just different and possibly wiser. As far as a potential learning disability goes the drugs and alcohol could NOT have contributed to that. I hadn't heard about his "multi-modality" (yuck teacher talk) needs. Yes, if he requires information to be presented to him in a variety of ways then he has a learning disability which is either genetic OR was caused in utero. We could begin speculating on Barbara and her drinking habits while pregnant but that would be baseless and defamatory
His having a learning disability is only disturbing in that, if he does have to make the big decisions, like sudden war, nuclear attack, etc..he will be slower to proces the gravity of the situation. A learnign disability in NO WAY is an indicator of intelligence! Most learning disabilities are speech-language based, meaning that somewhere in the brain the wiring is fouled (chemical/electrical signal is crossed) and the individual doen't see, hear, process, or regurgitate information normally. Some kids can not understand something when they read it alone, but if they read along while someone reads aloud they not only understand but can repeat, discuss, or extrapolate at a higher level than expected.
Albert Einstein, Woodrow Wilson, Nelson Rockefeller, George Washington, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, and George Patton all had various learning disabilities.
BTW, that doesn't mean George Bush ISN'T a moron, it just means that if he is he has it extra tough.....
I think for sure he is an addict. Everyone I know in NA and AA say the same thing. Once a drunk/junkie always a drunk/junkie. As soon as you tell yourself you aren't you will be abusing again.....
I have no doubt that he is no less a person for his prior abuse, he is just different and possibly wiser. As far as a potential learning disability goes the drugs and alcohol could NOT have contributed to that. I hadn't heard about his "multi-modality" (yuck teacher talk) needs. Yes, if he requires information to be presented to him in a variety of ways then he has a learning disability which is either genetic OR was caused in utero. We could begin speculating on Barbara and her drinking habits while pregnant but that would be baseless and defamatory
His having a learning disability is only disturbing in that, if he does have to make the big decisions, like sudden war, nuclear attack, etc..he will be slower to proces the gravity of the situation. A learnign disability in NO WAY is an indicator of intelligence! Most learning disabilities are speech-language based, meaning that somewhere in the brain the wiring is fouled (chemical/electrical signal is crossed) and the individual doen't see, hear, process, or regurgitate information normally. Some kids can not understand something when they read it alone, but if they read along while someone reads aloud they not only understand but can repeat, discuss, or extrapolate at a higher level than expected.
Albert Einstein, Woodrow Wilson, Nelson Rockefeller, George Washington, Thomas Edison, Walt Disney, and George Patton all had various learning disabilities.
BTW, that doesn't mean George Bush ISN'T a moron, it just means that if he is he has it extra tough.....
I think for sure he is an addict. Everyone I know in NA and AA say the same thing. Once a drunk/junkie always a drunk/junkie. As soon as you tell yourself you aren't you will be abusing again.....
Bush's rigid, judgmental outlook comes across in virtually all his speeches. To fight evil, Bush is ready to take on the world, in almost a biblical sense... Bush possesses the characteristics of the "dry drunk" in terms of his incoherence while speaking away from the script; his irritability with anyone (for example, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder) who dares disagree with him; and his dangerous obsessing about only one thing (Iraq)...
Whether Katherine has ulterior motives or other issues or whatever- this statement rings true from someone in the drug and alcohol abuse counseling field like me- take away the political overtures of the above statement and just chart the behavior and you have a "dry drunk".
Whether Katherine has ulterior motives or other issues or whatever- this statement rings true from someone in the drug and alcohol abuse counseling field like me- take away the political overtures of the above statement and just chart the behavior and you have a "dry drunk".
Having delt with quite a few addicts in my life, I can safely say that there's nothing inherent about being a recovering alcoholic or and addict that makes you less likely to be able to perform wel, assuming they're under control and not likely to pick up. It just doesn't work that way. I mean, it's like claiming that anyone who's been depressed isn't fit for public office. Addiction is a disease, not a character weakness, and if George Bush managed to overcome addiction then he's more qualified to be President, not less.
I completely disagree with the premise of this thread.
I completely disagree with the premise of this thread.
Hmm- good point RS- having an addiction absolutely does not make you unfit for a duty, unless under the influence of the substance. However- having an addiction, and being in a type of forced recovery sometimes makes you be a real hypocrite and have clouded judgements or "transference" when dealing non-white/black situations.
Getting away from GW himself- this is they way I would put it- there is a sobriety movement here, and they equate any drinking of alcohol as inherently bad- and have many of the same "convictions" about this issue as a "born again christian" have about morality and the need to force this morality on others. So, if one of my friends in the sobriety movement sees me having a beer, he may try to softly counsel me on my impending alcoholism LOL- though I am not an alcoholic nor any substance addict, except possibly food LOL-
So on the subject of GW being a dry drunk and it warping his vision on some items, I would say, yes, and in most folks, this would be no real big deal in the scheme of things, but when you have the power he does, it can be a REAL big deal.
Getting away from GW himself- this is they way I would put it- there is a sobriety movement here, and they equate any drinking of alcohol as inherently bad- and have many of the same "convictions" about this issue as a "born again christian" have about morality and the need to force this morality on others. So, if one of my friends in the sobriety movement sees me having a beer, he may try to softly counsel me on my impending alcoholism LOL- though I am not an alcoholic nor any substance addict, except possibly food LOL-
So on the subject of GW being a dry drunk and it warping his vision on some items, I would say, yes, and in most folks, this would be no real big deal in the scheme of things, but when you have the power he does, it can be a REAL big deal.
There is no evidence that GWB has been adversely affected in his ability to handle the office he holds by either drug or alcohol use/abuse earlier in his life. Nothing presented so far rises above the level of speculation. Biased speculation for the most part.
I find particularly amusing the 'he's obsessed with Iraq' argument. I would certainly hope he [/I]was so obsessed. Unless of course you'd rather have him at some golf course, refusing to accept a call regarding national security, as his predecessor used to do.
The criticism about the way he gets his information might be an even greater joke. Are you telling me he prefers to ask questions and have them answered by those who wrote the reports he's reading? The nerve!
If you want a clearer picture on GWB's leadership style and ability, read Woodward's book. It's an eye-opener, written by a not-exactly-right-wing-Republican. An eye-opener for those who haven't blindfolded themselves in their hatred. Their obsessive[I] hatred. Their, dare I say, 'dry-drunk obsessive' hatred.
I find particularly amusing the 'he's obsessed with Iraq' argument. I would certainly hope he [/I]was so obsessed. Unless of course you'd rather have him at some golf course, refusing to accept a call regarding national security, as his predecessor used to do.
The criticism about the way he gets his information might be an even greater joke. Are you telling me he prefers to ask questions and have them answered by those who wrote the reports he's reading? The nerve!
If you want a clearer picture on GWB's leadership style and ability, read Woodward's book. It's an eye-opener, written by a not-exactly-right-wing-Republican. An eye-opener for those who haven't blindfolded themselves in their hatred. Their obsessive[I] hatred. Their, dare I say, 'dry-drunk obsessive' hatred.
It seems fair to say that GW abused alcohol and drugs. I think that is undeniable. It is also undeniable that there are certain possible outcomes of recovering from addiction. In fact, from what I have learned from the two people close to me who are mentors in AA, there is a VERY regular and foreseeable pattern in the process of recovery.
For that reason I think it is reasonable to inquire about the possibility that GW's decisions could be affected by his addiction.
As far as the ever present references to certain past democrats, I think that TOO many republicans dropped their political bankroll on repeating "I didn't inhale" at every debate on every sublect. And now they find themselves looking foolish when someone brings up a rational discussion about the potential issues with a republican president's drug abuse history.
But don't worry, If those democrats begin to gloat on the topic I would point out that issue too. I have already come down in the middle on this issue..
...see my previous post...
For that reason I think it is reasonable to inquire about the possibility that GW's decisions could be affected by his addiction.
As far as the ever present references to certain past democrats, I think that TOO many republicans dropped their political bankroll on repeating "I didn't inhale" at every debate on every sublect. And now they find themselves looking foolish when someone brings up a rational discussion about the potential issues with a republican president's drug abuse history.
But don't worry, If those democrats begin to gloat on the topic I would point out that issue too. I have already come down in the middle on this issue..
...see my previous post...
I see nothing to prove that Bush is an addict in recovery. I have a history of heavy drinking (especially in college) and I think that if I held a high level (no pun intended) elective office I would swear off drinking for the duration of the term in office. I think Joe American getting drunk occasionally is acceptable, while I don't think it is acceptable for the President of the US to be drunk.
If he is in recovery and he is not using (not that I find this premise convincing) I do not see a reason to say that anyone with an addictive personality is unfit for office.
I think he affects his performance as president not a description of his personality.
As far as connecting his requests for simplified reports to learning disabilities, retardation, or dain bramage from drug use,
I think the corporate world is fairly addicted to dumbed down reports using power point with a few themes and most of the words being said displayed on a screen for the audience. If a simplified report shows Bush is learning disabled, then corporate America must be deemed so as well.
And I definitely don't think this is a true characterization. To me it seems like a generalization disguised as a personal observation.
If he is in recovery and he is not using (not that I find this premise convincing) I do not see a reason to say that anyone with an addictive personality is unfit for office.
I think he affects his performance as president not a description of his personality.
As far as connecting his requests for simplified reports to learning disabilities, retardation, or dain bramage from drug use,
I think the corporate world is fairly addicted to dumbed down reports using power point with a few themes and most of the words being said displayed on a screen for the audience. If a simplified report shows Bush is learning disabled, then corporate America must be deemed so as well.
QUOTE
Bush may not have been an addict, but most spoiled affluent white boys that I have known do nothing in moderation.
And I definitely don't think this is a true characterization. To me it seems like a generalization disguised as a personal observation.
Well, I for one would rather have a drinking competent president than an incompetent who is sober.
Incompetence might be a subjective observation at this point. Time will test whether Iraq was a mistake or not. Being that such attempts at nation building have either failed or resulted in unforeseen results, all I can surmise right now is that somebody didn't read their world history assignments in college.
Or the newspapers since being out.
Incompetence might be a subjective observation at this point. Time will test whether Iraq was a mistake or not. Being that such attempts at nation building have either failed or resulted in unforeseen results, all I can surmise right now is that somebody didn't read their world history assignments in college.
Or the newspapers since being out.
But he was coached since 1998 by Wolfowitz himself on Wolfowitz's 1992 Defense Policy Plan that called for U.S. hegemony...with an iron fist I might add.
But that's cheating, it's like in the movie Back To School where Rodney Dangerfield hires the authors of the novels he is supposed to read to write his papers on them....
Come on, no one on this board can honestly say they would rather have a president who is well coached on the issues than one who is self-taught.
OH, Eeyore, I was not aware of where the quote came from but Wertz has a quote claiming Bush is a "multi-modality" learner. If it is true then he has some learning disability OR he is just a bit slow.
But that's cheating, it's like in the movie Back To School where Rodney Dangerfield hires the authors of the novels he is supposed to read to write his papers on them....
Come on, no one on this board can honestly say they would rather have a president who is well coached on the issues than one who is self-taught.
OH, Eeyore, I was not aware of where the quote came from but Wertz has a quote claiming Bush is a "multi-modality" learner. If it is true then he has some learning disability OR he is just a bit slow.
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Dec 9 2003, 04:40 PM)
Well, I for one would rather have a drinking competent president than an incompetent who is sober.
Incompetence might be a subjective observation at this point. Time will test whether Iraq was a mistake or not. Being that such attempts at nation building have either failed or resulted in unforeseen results, all I can surmise right now is that somebody didn't read their world history assignments in college.
Or the newspapers since being out.
Incompetence might be a subjective observation at this point. Time will test whether Iraq was a mistake or not. Being that such attempts at nation building have either failed or resulted in unforeseen results, all I can surmise right now is that somebody didn't read their world history assignments in college.
Or the newspapers since being out.
Well, quite. Churchill was a big drinker prone to severe depression all through World War II butt nobody seriously questioned his competance during that time. Similarly Mrs Thatcher would glug down Scotch like it was going out of fashion after about 9pm, yet none of the mistakes she made while in power (and God knows there were plent of them) are attributable to drink.
Frankly, I think that while the 20 questions in the "is Your Drinking A Problem?" link are prefectly reasonable, the interpretation that three "Yes" answers means "you probably have a serious drinking problem and you probably need help" and even one "Yes" means "take it as a warning" is more evidence of the underlying puritanism in American society (the kind of moralising that led to the disaster of Prohibition) than any sensible medical assessment.
If you don't like Dubya as President, campaign against his policies and vote for the other guy when you get the chance. Speculation as to why he is a bad president is not only subjective, but it serves no useful purpose (unless you're a supporter of his who wants to make him a "better" president). If you do like him as President, his past relationship with drinking is irrelevant.
I detect a hint of "two can play at that game" come-back from Clinton supporters who were bruised by the way he was put throgh the mill for his sexual indeiscretions and his public dissembling on that subject.
In all circumstances, unless a politiican's private life becomes a demonstrable problem for the running of the country, I think it is one subject we can forgive them for trying to keep private, even if that means lying. Unless I am mistaken, the Presidential Oath of Office does not include anything about "I will always tell the truth about my private life but will be judicious in what I tell the public about matters of security or confidentiality."
I would much rather that our leaders relentlessly dseny the fact that they behave as if at a Roman orgy in private, but scrupulously tell the truth, no matter how damaging or embarrassing in all matters of public, international or commercial policy.
As it is, we expect them to lie for transient political gain about who is or isn't an ally internationally, who is paying them backhanders, the real reasons for their tax, defense or welfare policies that result in real and painful losses for sections of the electorate they represent. Yet, if we find out about a single white lie told to protect themselves or their family from public ridicule that harms none of the public they are sworn to protect, we place them beneath contempt.
It's as if we tacitly approve of corruption, vested interests and other realy damaging political behaviours and only get exercised about matters of personal continence. It seem to me that it isn't Presidents that have misplaced loyalties and false priorities in this regard, but the public itself.
QUOTE(Julian @ Dec 10 2003, 11:28 AM)
Frankly, I think that while the 20 questions in the "is Your Drinking A Problem?" link are prefectly reasonable, the interpretation that three "Yes" answers means "you probably have a serious drinking problem and you probably need help" and even one "Yes" means "take it as a warning" is more evidence of the underlying puritanism in American society (the kind of moralising that led to the disaster of Prohibition) than any sensible medical assessment. ........
.....I would much rather that our leaders relentlessly dseny the fact that they behave as if at a Roman orgy in private, but scrupulously tell the truth, no matter how damaging or embarrassing in all matters of public, international or commercial policy.
.....I would much rather that our leaders relentlessly dseny the fact that they behave as if at a Roman orgy in private, but scrupulously tell the truth, no matter how damaging or embarrassing in all matters of public, international or commercial policy.
Julian, I'm not aware of whether or not you have ever been to the U.S. but if you have not I'll tell you, suffice it to say that MANY English opinion about Americans are based more on myth than reality. I have many friends from Great Britain and other countries who have lived here and changed their minds on a lot of issues. The worst one is the cowboy/gun thing. Man, do they like to believe Americans have all seen gunfights! But I'm going off point.
About American Puritanism: It is more of a hoax than a reality. American society takes part in a very wide range of lifestyles rather successfully. Yes, we do have a very vocal "moral majorityy" who is actually rather quite the minority.
We do tend to be more private about the things we do though, and, while it confuses me a lot, we also tend to prefer to let our children watch something violent rather than something with sexual overtones.
All this works up to this point: Binge drinking in the U.S. is nothing like it is in England. Nothing at all. I don't even have to waste my time finding links for it because I imagine they are incredibly easy to find. It is "taboo" for children to consume alcohol before they hit the magic age of 21, their soul changes somehow, and they are suddenly alllowed to sip an ale.
I have gone to college parties with English and Irish (and German, Japanese, Australian, etc) exchange students. To the person they were shocked with the reckless abondon with which American students use drugs and drink. They don't socialize at parties, they individually engage in self-destruction, just about every time. I realize that not all people do this, however all people know what I mean. Americans have never had a problem with someone sitting back at night and having a drink or three. However, picturing our leader doing the type of abuse we are used to seeing IS disturbing...
ok ok just one link
LHR, you have sort of illustrated my point for me.
On the one hand, binge drinking and alcohol abuse cuases widespread problems in US society, and on the other, if you can remember more than three occasions when the normal physiological expressions of alcohol take place you are a "problem drinker".
It's as if the whole of society is in denial of the fact that Americans like to drink. That's where the puritanism comes in - I wasn't trying to suggest that most Americans are puritans, just that you allow them to have disproportionate influence of public attitudes and policy.
Think about it for a moment. Very few public places allow drinking (giving rise to the drinking from brown paper bags, and preventing the kind of pavement cafe-tyle drinking so common in Europe), and being publicly drunk is widely seen as inappropriate under any circumstances (again, compare to Europe, where being drunk is in itself viewed quite benignly, but certain types of drunken behaviour are frowned upon - driving, fighting, being in large groups, etc.). What does this do? For one thing, in a car culture it raises the likelihood of drink driving (drunks aren't "allowed" in public, and the distances are too large to walk anyway outside the older cities). For another, it forces people to drink more in the home, increaing the risk that occasional "problem drinking" might become more frequent and more essential to the person in question (i.e. alcohol dependency arises more easily when drink is constantly within reach - at least, as a layman I would guess it would).
The British are in a peculiar position, in that we are domestically very comfortable with public consumption of alcohol, but we are known throughout Europe as rowdy, noisy and threatening binge drinkers (nothing to do with hooliganism - this reputation goes back at least as far as Aginourt).
And besides all of that, I still wonder why you are so exercised about the possibility that the President's behaviour might be influenced by a dormant addiciton (even his harshest critics aren't suggesting that he's been drunk or coke-addled during his time at the White House), or that his predecessor had an affair then denied it, yet scandals like Enron, or Clean Air bill, or any number of other issues through the years that have indicated just how much influence big business has over politicians (despite the businessmen themselves having no more votes than anyone else) float by without anyone really caring.
On the one hand, binge drinking and alcohol abuse cuases widespread problems in US society, and on the other, if you can remember more than three occasions when the normal physiological expressions of alcohol take place you are a "problem drinker".
It's as if the whole of society is in denial of the fact that Americans like to drink. That's where the puritanism comes in - I wasn't trying to suggest that most Americans are puritans, just that you allow them to have disproportionate influence of public attitudes and policy.
Think about it for a moment. Very few public places allow drinking (giving rise to the drinking from brown paper bags, and preventing the kind of pavement cafe-tyle drinking so common in Europe), and being publicly drunk is widely seen as inappropriate under any circumstances (again, compare to Europe, where being drunk is in itself viewed quite benignly, but certain types of drunken behaviour are frowned upon - driving, fighting, being in large groups, etc.). What does this do? For one thing, in a car culture it raises the likelihood of drink driving (drunks aren't "allowed" in public, and the distances are too large to walk anyway outside the older cities). For another, it forces people to drink more in the home, increaing the risk that occasional "problem drinking" might become more frequent and more essential to the person in question (i.e. alcohol dependency arises more easily when drink is constantly within reach - at least, as a layman I would guess it would).
The British are in a peculiar position, in that we are domestically very comfortable with public consumption of alcohol, but we are known throughout Europe as rowdy, noisy and threatening binge drinkers (nothing to do with hooliganism - this reputation goes back at least as far as Aginourt).
And besides all of that, I still wonder why you are so exercised about the possibility that the President's behaviour might be influenced by a dormant addiciton (even his harshest critics aren't suggesting that he's been drunk or coke-addled during his time at the White House), or that his predecessor had an affair then denied it, yet scandals like Enron, or Clean Air bill, or any number of other issues through the years that have indicated just how much influence big business has over politicians (despite the businessmen themselves having no more votes than anyone else) float by without anyone really caring.
Good point Julian,
You got me there, I think that the most vocal opinions about alcoholism are "puritanical" in that they are quick to label "evil" on those things they disagree with. I'm still up in the air on those alcoholism questionaires. I know some "recovered alcoholics" who used Alcoholics Anonymous to stopp drinking. They always say that it is different for each person. Those tests are just the first step to see if you are on the path of an alcoholic. My case in point:
I was a bartender in a very popular downtown nightclub for 5 years. In this place drinking was expected of the staff as well as the customers. I routinely took shots with customwers and always had another drink to sip as I worked. I calculated one day (long ago) and realized that I was AVERAGING 90 drinks per week. That set off alarms bells to me bnecause I didn't even realize it was that much, however when I quit bartending I stopped drinking simply because it was no longer free
and went probably two years without having a drink because I had no interest. The alcoholics I know were amazed that it didn't get control of me but there is no history of alcoholism in my father's family at all so maybe I won the genetic lottery on that...
Last year the school police officer in my school told a class a statistic that she uses for shock value: In the U.S. from Thursday to Saturday and between the hours of 9 PM and 3 AM it is estimated that 60% of drivers on the road are above the legal limit of blood-alcohol levels. So yes Julian, we have the very problem you described. Because alcohol is perceived to be taboo it is abused. However, to understand our complete hipocrisy look at that link in my last post. The amount of alcohol related material in the media is outrageous. One can't watch television without seeing loads of ads for it. Yet ads for cigarettes are not allowed...
OK, so our society creates a fertile patch for the spread of addictive habits. I think I agree with you. But the scary part about this thread is the information about "dry drunks". There is a phenomena where people who quit drinking are still obsessed with their addiction (often because they quit cold-turkey and with no help) and they focus that obsession in other arenas to try to quiet the monster lurking inside them. This is documented as a real psychological issue and, if relevant to GW's case, is a concern.
You got me there, I think that the most vocal opinions about alcoholism are "puritanical" in that they are quick to label "evil" on those things they disagree with. I'm still up in the air on those alcoholism questionaires. I know some "recovered alcoholics" who used Alcoholics Anonymous to stopp drinking. They always say that it is different for each person. Those tests are just the first step to see if you are on the path of an alcoholic. My case in point:
I was a bartender in a very popular downtown nightclub for 5 years. In this place drinking was expected of the staff as well as the customers. I routinely took shots with customwers and always had another drink to sip as I worked. I calculated one day (long ago) and realized that I was AVERAGING 90 drinks per week. That set off alarms bells to me bnecause I didn't even realize it was that much, however when I quit bartending I stopped drinking simply because it was no longer free
and went probably two years without having a drink because I had no interest. The alcoholics I know were amazed that it didn't get control of me but there is no history of alcoholism in my father's family at all so maybe I won the genetic lottery on that...Last year the school police officer in my school told a class a statistic that she uses for shock value: In the U.S. from Thursday to Saturday and between the hours of 9 PM and 3 AM it is estimated that 60% of drivers on the road are above the legal limit of blood-alcohol levels. So yes Julian, we have the very problem you described. Because alcohol is perceived to be taboo it is abused. However, to understand our complete hipocrisy look at that link in my last post. The amount of alcohol related material in the media is outrageous. One can't watch television without seeing loads of ads for it. Yet ads for cigarettes are not allowed...
OK, so our society creates a fertile patch for the spread of addictive habits. I think I agree with you. But the scary part about this thread is the information about "dry drunks". There is a phenomena where people who quit drinking are still obsessed with their addiction (often because they quit cold-turkey and with no help) and they focus that obsession in other arenas to try to quiet the monster lurking inside them. This is documented as a real psychological issue and, if relevant to GW's case, is a concern.
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Dec 11 2003, 12:00 PM)
But the scary part about this thread is the information about "dry drunks". There is a phenomena where people who quit drinking are still obsessed with their addiction (often because they quit cold-turkey and with no help) and they focus that obsession in other arenas to try to quiet the monster lurking inside them. This is documented as a real psychological issue and, if relevant to GW's case, is a concern.
Too right, Herring - and that is one of the main points here. If those interested have not yet read the Salon column cited above, I'd recommend it. It's both insightful and humane.
Ok, but I still think that the core of any concerns with the actions of President Bush should be geared around what those actions are rather than why he takes those actions.
It seems to me that supporters of an obsessively driven leader who follows all the right paths would have a pretty good case for saying that this type of leader is better than someone with a more balanced personality. Bush's problem is that fewer and fewer people think paths he takes are the right ones.
So the argument is predicated on whether one supports Bush's actions or not. You seem to be saying that it needs to go beyond that, and I'm saying it doesn't.
I don't think it matters why someone in a position of responsibility messes up after the second time they do it. The first time they didn't know any better. The second time they can be forgiven because everyone is entitled to mess up once when they should know better. After that, they are no more use than a cheese spanner and all effort should be centred on removing them from a position where their mistakes can do harm, rather than trying to help them not to make any more mistakes in that position. (If for no other reason than that the people doing the helping are also human and will also make mistakes.)
This also applies to the American voters and the republic's electoral system that allowed Bush II into the White House at all. Arguably this is not the first time they have made mistakes, so perhaps it is time to think about changing them somehow, too.
It seems to me that supporters of an obsessively driven leader who follows all the right paths would have a pretty good case for saying that this type of leader is better than someone with a more balanced personality. Bush's problem is that fewer and fewer people think paths he takes are the right ones.
So the argument is predicated on whether one supports Bush's actions or not. You seem to be saying that it needs to go beyond that, and I'm saying it doesn't.
I don't think it matters why someone in a position of responsibility messes up after the second time they do it. The first time they didn't know any better. The second time they can be forgiven because everyone is entitled to mess up once when they should know better. After that, they are no more use than a cheese spanner and all effort should be centred on removing them from a position where their mistakes can do harm, rather than trying to help them not to make any more mistakes in that position. (If for no other reason than that the people doing the helping are also human and will also make mistakes.)
This also applies to the American voters and the republic's electoral system that allowed Bush II into the White House at all. Arguably this is not the first time they have made mistakes, so perhaps it is time to think about changing them somehow, too.
He's admitted to having a drinking problem. As for the drug thing, his obfuscation of such questions certainly raises some flags. At the same time, we elect a president, not the pope. I would love to see the day when a candidate/president says: "Yeah, I did it and I've worked to overcome it" That will truly be a groundbreaking day. After that, I'd like to see the person devote millions in funds to private and public treatment clinics and work to get mental health to be a priority in this country, and not a stigma. Mr. Bush is to be applauded for overcoming his personal demons. He could use his lessons to teach the nation more about perseverence and overcoming travails.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.