I personally do not believe President Bush is a drug addict nor do I believe his ability to reason has been impaired based on what I've seen. However, here comes Kitty Kelly, no sure bet for truth herself, alleging Bush used cocaine at Camp David. I would have dismissed it except for some personal friends I know who went to school with Mr. Bush and some more who attended certain social outings with him many years ago.

Having heard another completely different cocaine story before Mr. Bush ever ran for office, I’m wondering if it matters to anyone whether there is more than just smoke concerning the way Mr. Bush answers questions about the possibility of prior drug use. (His answers are usually well-scripted and tend to be something on the order of "I did some things when I was younger that I am not proud of.")

This is the story I heard first-hand from a supposed witness and fellow 'partier': A UT grad who knew and liked Bush was with another female friend some 20 or so years ago in Vail, Colorado, where she and her friend were enjoying the nightlife. They both observed George and another male friend sans spouses, “doing coke” at a Vail night spot and hustling ‘snow bunnies’. Among the “hustlees” were my friend (the witness) and her friend.

I simply filed that story away with all the other “I saw George Clooney picking his nose” stories one hears concerning celebrities until the recent Kitty Kelly flap arose. I thought about the way George Bush replied to previous drug questions as if coached by counsel when the possibility of a surprise witness might exist. I began thinking he must know there are several and various witnesses or he would categorically deny the accusations.

My question for debate is: Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life? In the event he had and if he has since dealt successfully with any addiction he may or may not have had, does it/should it matter?

Source and partial content of second cocaine story:

Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s. She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: "Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either."

<snip>

The White House said: "This book appears to be filled with the same trash discredited years ago."

<snip>


Link to one report on Kitty Kelly’s book. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_ob...-name_page.html

Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life?

Even the highly pro-Bush book The Faith of George W. Bush* by Stephen Mansfield (page 50) has this to say about Bush’s younger life:



It probably wouldn’t matter to me except that Bush now takes such a black/white view of morality. It might not matter, except for the hard on line position he has taken as a law and order man both as Governor of Texas and President of the United States. It might not matter, except for the many young people sitting in jails across the country for doing things often no worse than Bush did. It might not matter except that the President talked “compassionate conservatism” in his 2000 campaign, is talking about again this time, yet doesn’t seem to have compassion for those who are not lucky enough to be born to affluence or given a pass at every turn as he himself has been given. It probably doesn't matter except that Bush's compassion seemingly doesn’t extend to those who are caught in the same web of destruction he was caught in twenty years ago.

For the reasons above, it matters to me.

In the event he had and if he has since dealt successfully with any addiction he may or may not have had, does it/should it matter?

I don’t wish to answer the second question. Although psychiatrist Justin A. Frank in his book Bush on the Couch questions whether Bush could have completely recovered from his “youthful” excesses without the benefit of an AA program, (Chapter 3) an answer here would be more speculative than to the first question.

*Note: Although the same information is available in several anti-Bush books, I thought it would be more credible coming from a pro-Bush account like Mansfield's.

It certainly seemed to matter that Bill Clinton smoked cannabis cigarettes "but did not inhale" during his reckless youth.

And I'd put money on the fact that at least some of the people who think GWB's past drug taking is not relevant were more than a little outraged by Clinton's behaviour. Sauce for the goose...

Outside of being the butt of jokes throughout the 90's, I don't really think this was the case. I've never heard or read of it being brought up in serious debate as to Clinton's fitness to serve as president.

Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life?
Not to me, not in the slightest. As I may someday aspire to political office, it would be mighty hypocritical of me to think otherwise. That being said, if Bush did have more than an experimental drug history, I think he should have owned up to it long before now. If it came out now, conclusively, that he did use drugs on numerous occasions, I believe it would damage his credibility and re-election chances.
But I have yet to see anything bordering on credible, that would lead me to believe that he did use drugs. The only 'reporting' I have read on this have been in the vein of the Kitty Kelly book, which is to say, on par with the Weekly World News.

BoF, I hadn't thought about it in that light. Of course there are several examples of crimes committed by certain classes of people where unfair adjudication seems to be the unfortunate result. I am, of course, as a fiercely independent animal, vehemently opposed to the Patriot Act's intrusion into our lives.

Going back to your premise, I would think the TANG controversy is strangely parallel in that it envolves a class-driven "deferment" occasioned by certain political connections. In Bush's defense, it wasn't the only one.

In that vein, Bill Maher was interviewed on Larry King as saying (not verbatim) "I almost wish Bush would win the election so he would be forced to clean up Iraq himself. In the past, all his messes were cleaned up by someone else." I found the statement funny. I tend to like Bill Maher's irreverence but I don't always agree with his positions.

I viewed the Clinton overseas comments as being worse than the original lie about Lewinsky but NOT worse than the behavior. The lie, in my mind, was given life of its own and was continued by Clinton even to the point of perjury. Even though I think it was initially told in order to keep the admission from his family and other advisors who had no doubt warned him to curtail his womanizing.

In Bush's case, my own personal knowledge and the implicit trust in my source has me believing he WAS a cocaine abuser. However, I do not think that Kerry's Viet Nam record, Bush's National Guard Record or this most recent cocaine allegation has much influence on their behavior today.

I do see the point that others have been JAILED for less but let's face the fact that a disproportionate number of U.S. minorities are killed and injured fighting in wars today because of the disproportionate numbers enlisted.

Incidentally, I was also cognizant of fact that the Bush 41 line of "Read my lips. No new taxes" and the Clinton line of "I didn't inhale" and "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky" became jokes that many repeated. With Gore, it was the "I invented the internet" line. During this administration the Cheney line of "We know now that Saddam doesn't just desire Weapons of Mass Destruction, he HAS them" has also gotten great mileage.

We also know that the Gore line was the only untrue line listed above. He actually said, in not so many words, that he had voted for certain measures and served on committees that helped give birth to the internet.

Even the supposed Kerry 'Flip Flop' stating "I voted FOR the additional funds for our troops before I voted against it" is an "Urban Legend" being taken out of context. Kerry's vote FOR the appropriations was on a bill that would have been funded by removing a tax cut while the version he voted against was to borrow the money to do so.

I doubt the average voter will ever REALLY see the truth according to how ordinary people would define it.

As I have said many times. It is about the money and in order to be elected or re-elected one must have plenty of it. Today's election climate dictates that unholy alliances be formed.

To quote that line from Mission Impossible, "Your job, if you choose to accept it," is to follow the money and to choose the least corrupt.

Except for the excellent thoughts offered by BoF, I'm not sure the cocaine use matters.

As always, I enjoy hearing about factors that I haven't considered.

Thanks,

Why is Kitty Kelly even a part of this political debate?

She's a gossip columnist that can't provide evidence of one thing she's written about. As down as I am on Bush, her contribution to the political landscape is basically peeing all over the issues because she can make money off it.

As long as anybody takes her seriously, gives her any credibility, or spends money on her unsubstantiated crap, more Kitty Kellys will pop up selling their sordid wares.

Prior drug use might matter if Bush came out and admitted a problem with it. Maybe tearing the tags off mattresses is really Bush's problem. After all, there's no more proof of that than his drug use.

Maybe we should change the name of this thread to : Replying to Kitty Kelly - does tearing the tags off mattresses matter? Because it's about as relevant 40 years later.

Daytona,

Your take on Kitty Kelly is correct, but like everything else, her book will have "some" on this year's political discussion.

When I walked into Borders last night, the first thing I saw was a mountain of Kitty Kelly's books. Any book that's sold and read in mass simply can't be ignored, even if there are those of us (myself0 not inclined to read it. In fact, I don't see that what she does in print is all that much different from what Rush Limbaugh has done on the radio for fifteen years--shading meanings, misquoting, quoting out of context, distortion of facts, etc.

PAC thread wasn't about Kitty Kelly's book, but about George W. Bush's alleged drug use in his young and irresponsible years. (until about ages 38-40 by his own admission) This charge has been around for a long time and confirmed by more credible sources, even a highly pro-Bush book by Stephen Mansfield that I cited earlier.

Again, to answser PAC's question, the issue is important to me because Bush hasn't come up with anything to "help" others in the position he was in 20 years ago other than jail or Jesus.

With all due respect, DaytonRocker, the hordes of gossip purveyors neither start nor stop with Kitty Kelly. I asked the question because I believe my friend's account substantiates another separate incident similar to the one Kitty Kelly may have described.

I personally do not think it matters unless you consider the context in which BoF finds it offensive.

On the other hand, 3500 Swift Boat Vets could not have possibly been eye witnesses to anything either. In fact 3500 vets on board those five boats would have sunk all five. I tire of the rhetoric from both sides and Bush's team is far from faint-hearted when it comes to attacking anyone's credibility either. Just ask John McCain. What was done to him was no less than savage and deceitful.

Today, Sean Hannity was saying that Imus interviewed Kerry and asked the candidate whether he had read the Swift Boat book, "Unfit For Command." Kerry supposedly replied (according to Hannity), "It is pack of lies. No, I haven't read it and don't intend to." At this point in the Hannity account, Hannity begins a self-righteous guffaw and mocks Kerry by asking, "He hasn't read the book yet he knows it is a pack of lies? Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, etc." I went back and looked up one of the Sean Hannity Show transcripts for one of the Fahrenheit 9-11 discussions Hannity aired. Guesss what? There is Sean, bigger than Big D on the Texas Plains, saying "I don't need to see the movie. It's been reviewed and it is a pack of lies."

Hello???????

I've had my fill of most of what 527's and radio pundits have to say.

This one particular cocaine issue piqued my interest because of the previous story I had heard years ago and also because of the way in which Bush has always orchestrated his response to questions about cocaine use.

I am so weary of hearing "Flip Flopper" used to describe Kerry when I have researched BOTH candidates stances and found just as many from the other side. In fact, if I hear it one more time, I may request that the ballot have a referendum on a Flipper Tattoo for EACH candidate. BOTH candidates have rethought and each has changed his mind on numerous occasions.

For someone to make fun of the "I voted FOR the 87 Billion BEFORE I voted AGAINST it" is to show enough abject stupidity for it void their right to vote OR even reproduce, in my opinion. - Not really - but it's scary to see people with that little sophistication pulling voting levers. Kerry's statement on its face is absolutely no worse than the Cheney WMD corroboration and Bush's subsequent change of rhetoric concerning WMD's.

Just as we are spending days on muddying the real debate over issues by giving life to stories like the CBS "fake" or "forged" or "real" records, we are repeating platitudes placed in front of us by spin doctors from all sides without much research. This forum does a good job of intercepting that spin and asking harder questions but we are a minority of the voting public.

The topic title of this thread asks "does prior drug use matter?"

Have you filled out an application for work and had to answer the question, Are you using drugs or have you used drugs? What did you write? If you were once a user but had been clean for a number of years, did you still indicate "yes," or did you feel it didn't apply to you and write "no"? To what degree does an honest answer matter, especially when an honest answer means that you might not get that job?

If people applying for work at McDonald's are disqualified for answering that question in the affirmative, should a politician, especially one aspiring to the Presidency, be disqualified as well? Is overcooking the French fries a bigger potential problem than getting a country ticked off at you?

If George Walker Bush had not campaigned on the character issue (contrasting his to Clinton's), it might not have been such a big deal. I agree with BoF, especially in the context of Bush being considered a law and order man.

The fact that Bush and/or his family has so successfully hidden many of the details surrounding his years as a young adult makes it all the more enticing to those who like to write exposes or tattle-tale books. Furthermore, Bush's perceived sanctimony adds a thin veneer of respectability to Kitty Kelley's effort.

Some years ago, an ex-convict named J.H. Hatfield wrote an unauthorized biography of George W. Bush, Fortunate Son. It was not intended to hurt Bush. But the Bush family contacted the publisher, St. Martin's Press, and threatened them. St. Martin's Press took it out of publication. Soft Skull Press has re-published it. It's worth reading.

Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life?

I never thought it mattered with Clinton, and I see no reason for it to matter with Bush. 30 years ago is 30 years ago. What matters to me is your political record and policy decisions. THis is why I will not be voting for Bush or Kerry.



This is a strawman in my opinion. The vast majority of drug users in America, regardless of social status have never been arrested or jailed. Drug use is pervasive in this country and only a small minority of users ever get caught, convicted and jailed. Drug users play the odds, most win, some loose. It's the risk you take. If Bush did use drugs in his youth he was simply one of the majority of America's drug users that didn't get caught.

Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life? In the event he had and if he has since dealt successfully with any addiction he may or may not have had, does it/should it matter?

It should not matter, any more then Clintons supposed drug use, Kerry's war protests, or anything else that happened 30 years ago when all these guys were young and stupid. We were all young and stupid once, those experiences and our mistakes are lessons most of us learned from. For those of us in Bush's, Kerry's and Clinton's age group: Are you the same person you were in your Teens and college years?



And what should the President do about this? Create rehab programs and force people into them who don't yet want help? Tax people, reducing their family resources to pay for these programs? The most successful programs out there are AA and NA, as far as I know neither is a federal program, both are voluntary and both have good track records. The only people that can quit habits, be they drugs, booze, smoking, or whatever are those who make the personal decision on their own to quit. Almost all of those try to quit because someone else wants them to quit, fail. Perhaps, having had a problem in the past with booze and maybe drugs, President Bush realizes this, and sees the reality that federal rehab programs would be a complete waste of money.

No, it didn't matter to most people that Clinton smoked cannabis. Dan Quayle also admitted to doing this. What did matter was his denial at the beginning, followed by the "but I didn't inhale" when caught in the lie. Of course, that was an early sign of things to come.

I don't care much about Bush's past drug use, as long as it is WELL behind him. There are more relevant issues to contend with. I'll ditto pretty much everything Overlandsailor said here.

The question was actually was COCAINE, not cannabis. Drug use WAS in the topic but that is because there are a limited amount characters allowed in a topic on this board. I spelled out the word in the debate question within the post and did not use the phrase "DRUG" in that debate criteria. I do admit the word "drug(s)" was mentioned in subsequent paragraphs and in the topic but that was not the intent of the question. I believe Cociane use to be much more serious AND its effects more harmful and potentially physiologically permanent than "Mary Jane".

My actual question for debate was printed in bold and is reprinted here:

My question for debate is: Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life? In the event he had and if he has since dealt successfully with any addiction he may or may not have had, does it/should it matter?

Although I find no outward symptoms in my observations of Mr. Bush, the effect of cocaine on the brain can be permanent and irreversible. BoF's post points out a hinted medical opinion written about Mr. Bush exploring that very subject. Paladin Elspeth correctly points out it can be the reason McDonalds rejects a job application.

There have been some enlightening posts in this thread covering points I had not considered.

As I said, I had heard a similar and unrelated cocaine story before Bush's first Governorship campaign. The source, a close family friend, was and is not given to exaggeration and the information was offered primarily as a "Guess who was partying in Vail with us?" comment. The cocaine use came up later in the conversation. The point of the comment was the "hustling" or "coming on" by the two men of several of the ladies there.

Now, if you get to the meat of the matter, I don't think questions about what happened 20-30 years ago mean much unless they reveal behaviors that are still applicable.

Politicians, like some athletes, come to believe the hype spun about them and act accordingly. Most have MASSIVE egos and attentive staffs who preen them daily. This part of the political landscape makes many very egotistical - not that they weren't already bent in that direction.

I find repitition of Mr. Bush's obviously scripted answer when asked about drug use, strangely similar to Mr. Clinton's when he was asked about Monica Lewinsky. Both refuse(d) to admit their invovement in such activities with Mr. Bush refusing to address a particular occurrence by admitting to 'general' bouts of inappropriate behavior in the past.

It simply seems he has been well-coached by counsel on preparing for the surprise witness that could come forward.

Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life?

Not much, as has been said before what matters is his policy, the decisions he makes in office. His "youthful indescretions" are of no interest to me as a voter. However, it does matter in regards to bush's apporoach to the "war on drugs." If Bush was in fact a cocaine user, especially a recovered cocaine user, then he should in some way understand the culture behind it, as well as the draw of addiction, especially when one lives in poor circumstance. If Bush had any sympathy or understanding for his own kind he would have spent time legislating "back-door" addiction treatment programs to help stop addicted inmates from continuing their addictions outside. Bush, however, did not, he actually limited the funding going to "front-door" treatment programs for inmates just arriving (which have proven to not work) as well as made it harder to push for Back Door programs in Texas prisons. When questioned as to why he would so obviously snub the addicts that have been jailed by his state, spokespeople replied that treatment won't help these addicts becuase "they are in denial." This is of course with total ignorance that the very nature of addiction is denial of addiction, and treatment programs are specifically designed to break this denial. If Bush never touched the stuff, more power to him.

In the event he had and if he has since dealt successfully with any addiction he may or may not have had, does it/should it matter?

In terms of electibility? No. Addiction is a disease one overcomes. Just as surviving cancer shouldn't make Kerry any more electible.

I, personally, could care less if at this very moment the president is reenacting that Scarface scene where he sits at his desk and puts his whole face in a giant mountain of blow. The fact that 30 year old drug use is irrelevant to me goes without saying. The only thing that would concern me is if it affected his job performance. But that's with everything. I wouldn't want our president to be getting drunk and goofing around with the "football", but I don't care if he gets drunk. I wouldn't want him to puke and fall over while giving the State of The Union speech, but I don't care if he drinks a keg of turpentine every night. Similarly, I don't care if he does cocaine. If he is doing a good job as president, I will not question why. If he is doing a crappy job, I will also not question why. I despise Bush with all my heart, but drug use is irrelevant to me.

The stigma against recreational drug users in our society is completely ridiculous. People are actually making an issue over what Bush puts in his nose. Is JFK (not Kerry) any worse for (supposedly) doing many drugs and throwing orgies IN THE WHITE HOUSE? I don't think so.

I disagree, looms. If any President were doing a bad job and it could be attributed to cocaine use or "turpetine", then there are mechanisms available to us to remove the President. The amount of energy and time needed to remove a sitting president is both enormous and usually harmful to the country. I do NOT, for a minute, think Mr. Bush is currently using cocaine but your interpretation of not caring what he puts up his nose NOW is a serious flaw in logical thinking. How could drinking a "keg of Turpetine" every night or snorting coke to be "up" to the tasks of the Presidency NOT affect anyone's ability to do his job?

I have a couple of observations.

First, perhaps the "stigma against recreational drug use is ridiculous" and perhaps "what Bush puts in his nose" is irrelevant. Still, I don't think Bush would go out of his way to give the benefit of the doubt to others, particularly young people, that he himself received So, how would Bush support your argument? His only solution, as I have said before, seems to be jail or a hypodermic needle full of Jesus or maybe jail with a choice of whateve version of "Jesus Behind Bars" some ministry or individual wants to peddle. None of it works very well and it makes Bush the nation's Hypocrite-in-Chief.

It's hard for me to imagine Bush as a preferred candidate for a libertarian supporting relaxed drug laws.

Second, passing on Kennedy's sex life for now, few new the full extent of his medical problems until a yea ago when Robert Dallek published An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy 1917-1963. The drugs Kennedy took were not illicit, but necessary to Keep him alive. Journalistic standards were different in the early 1960s than now. In a day in which presidents release medical information, Kennedy would have a hard time being elected. There are some who question whether Kennedy would have lived to finish a second term.

Sounds like a woman scorned to me...
A woman making up a story about the most powerful man in the world doing coke 30 years ago? ... doesn't sound unrealistic.

To answer the question I don't believe that previous drug/alcohol use has any bearing on what happens today.

The only exception that I would make would be in cases where there were proven instances in the recent history. (i.e. Marion Barry)
If the President admitted to a little drug use years ago, who cares? At least he admitted to inhaling!!!! Who can respect a man that told the world "he didn't inhale"!?!?!?!?

Believing a story from a woman who admittedly met Mr. Bush in a bar 20-30 years ago is like asking Martha Stewart for stock advice. Come on...

I guess I would like to frame the question a little more. If, during Bush I's term in office from 1988-1992, GWB did coke at Camp David, as the book alleges, would that matter to you? This isn't 30 years ago, granted its still over a decade ago but the fact that he did it at a government facility gives me pause. Honestly, I don't know how I feel about it but if it is true, perhaps others might consider it important as well. /shrug

Doc

My personal feeling is that it does not matter a jot, that youth could be a world away, with regards a comment that included a psychiatrists opinion that without some form of AA Bush could not have got over his issues I find to be fairly non-sensical. People can deal with an awful lot without having to turn to others for assisstance and some mild drug experimentation is something that someone with a firm will can more than easily get over.

The thing to remember is that obviously this weakness is not preferable, but saying that a bit of life experience is not a bad thing and i do not think it has caused any harm to Bush's psyche other than to possibly compound his moral leaning regarding such subjects. If anything he may be less tolerant.

Oh puleeeze, aevans176!

This woman was 'scorned' by no one. Besides that, her family could probably buy the Rangers AND Bush 43 with folding money left over.

Shooting the messenger gets ZERO mileage. I happen to believe her and said that other than the reasons stated by others, it didn't matter as far as I was concerned. I still may vote for Bush, though I am still undecided.

This is just the same sort of thing that makes me sick when I listen to Radio Pundits. THERE IS NO DEBATE - only diatribes, name-calling, and taking part in the very laughable and totally worthless activity of shooting the messenger. Why does Mr. Bush ALWAYS answer questions about cocaine use in the same measured way? No one has answered that question. It really doesn't matter but an idiot could tell he has been coached in preparation for the possibility of a surprise witness. Though I doubt the lady I know would EVER repeat the story publicly, I have little doubt she had any need to add the cocaine issue to a story of two liquored up guys trying to hit on girls.

To be exact, the incident she told me about supposedly occurred in the winter of 1981 or 1982 and was mentioned to me over cocktails at a party prior to Mr. Bush's first gubernatorial campaign. That would leave only a decade or less between the reported incident and when I was told the story.

The lady still has a home in Vail.

According to the Christian Science Monitor:



<snip>


http://www.phitar.com/stuff/articles/incarceration.html

OS,

I don’t think this is the “strawman” you make it out to be. Even if many drug offenders are not caught, there are still plenty to create overcrowded jails.

I had a female friend in Dallas’ Lew Sterritt Justice Center a few months ago, though not on drug charges. She and the local papers reported that Dallas County had so many inmates that they were being given three for one good time. I visited her three times while she was in Dallas. Twice she was in a dilapidated older annex building because the women’s section of Lew Sterritt was full.

So, I stand on my statement that what Bush did ten, twenty or thirty years ago
does matter, because his "compassionate conservatism" doesn’t afford others, particularly young drug offenders, the same “pass” that Bush seems to have obtained on this and nearly every other issue during his entire lifetime.

The discussion about the problem of prison overcrowding and how it is caused by mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes, would be a good topic for debate. It's just not this topic. I would look forward to that one starting, because I personally feel that the entire war on drugs is a waste of resources, not to mention an infringement on individual liberty.



So then I can assume you would agree that Senator Kerry's History of Protesting the Vietnam war, as well as his misleading tactics in that protest should matter when considering him. After all, if he would misrepresent himself through fraudulent actions then, why wouldn't he do it now?

Anyone who has ever had an addiction, or an addicted family member or friend knows that no one can make a person quit other then that person. Government programs to attempt to force rehab on people would simply be a waste of funds.

As for him not affording the same "pass" he got in his youth, what if any new anti-drug policies have been enacted by President Bush? It would seem to me that he has afforded the exact same pass to other youths by not making any changes to drug laws.

This is really kind of pointless. I don't like Bush because of his actions while in office. I don't like Kerry because of his actions while in office. And I will be voting for neither. It would seem to me, that a politicians political and policy record is much more important then any misguided acts of their youth.

First of all, addiction is NOT a disease - it is a CHOICE.
Comparing alcohol or cocaine addiction to cancer is irresponsible.



Yes, it matters. He does not have a fluency or facility with the english
language that a man in his position SHOULD have. He may not have been
born a genius, but the brain cells that his cocaine use previously killed have
undoubtedly lessened his abilities to some degree.

The president of the United States of America is about the highest position
a man can hope to achieve. Why should we settle for a man who has shown
a lack of sound judgment by indulging in the use of narcotics, in the first place.

Sure, a lot of people experiment with drugs. It doesn't make it right, and
it doesn't make prior use of cocaine an unimportant detail of one's past,
especially if that one is our leader.

Comrade, I have no intention of trying to prove to you that addiction is a disease. It is an accepted scientific fact. I am predisposed genetically to alcoholism, addiction to alcohol. Addiction can manifest as either a physical disease (i. e. chemical depndency) or a psychological disease, and usually both. [edited to add] As far as addiction being a choice, well I invite you over to my house, and you can engage in the recreational use of heroin or cocaine or even nicotene, and after a few weeks, I implore to you to really consider the craving and weakness you feel as part of a conscious choice. You speak of responsibility, so please inform me what a responsible comparison would be. In any case, like cancer, one could potentially view addiction as a sign of weakness. My point was, and I hope you can understand, that the overcoming of a personal weakness, be it cancer, addiction, or a speech impedement as Bush has yet to overcome, should not be viewed as an extra strength, especially not in terms of electibility. Nor should one who has suffered from a weakness in the past that doesn't impede directly on ones ability to do ones job in the current be viewed as an electibility issue.

Believe me, my disdain for Bush the junior is immense, however as I have known many people whom have used drugs, I would not hold it against him. The cocaine use issue is just one of several half-witted issues that I am appaled with, especially that Kerry would consider using them above the most obvious issues like Bush's policy-making, war-mongering, and un-accountability. Another similar example is Bush's alleged dodge of the draft. Bush is a privelaged son. We accept that. If I was born in that era, and would have been eligible for the draft, I would have tried to dodge it too. Cowardice is human. Cowardice in leaders is undesirable, but if his public policy was so good that it made up for it, it wouldn't really matter. Of course, Bush's public policy is far far from worthy of praise or positive attention.

In the context of the war on drugs, initiated by Republicans and expanded over the years by both Repubs and Demos who had turned Repub on the war on drugs, yes. That GWB was snorting the rich kid's drug while Texas was issuing life sentences to working class pot smokers is important in that it points to the pampered life GWB led before going into politics.

Bringing this forward to today, the pampered rich kid continues to expect no bad results from his actions. So the core of this behavior is still present in our sitting President who obviously thinks nothing of starting wars on bad intel, and blames the intel community for his own lack of foresight. That's the biggest thing to date, but the list ranges from environmental stewardship to energy policy to education policy to healthcare policy.

No fear; no responsibility.

He's also a big fan of Putin, the near dictator of Russia. Is that connected to early cocaine abuse? It's a stretch, but dictating is the easy political route, and so is drug abuse the easy way to handle the stresses of youth. It's connected by a fundamental character flaw in GWB, a weakness that disqualifies him from the post of President of the United States.

And that is: He seeks the easy way, and when things turn bad, he denies responsibility. It's typical drug addict behavior.

Contrast this with Kerry, who to my knowledge has never done illegal drugs. If he had, the Republican attack dogs would have been all over him by now. No, he volunteered dangerous service for his country. He took the harder paths in his life, and what we are facing will require leadership of responsibility, not of avoidance of responsibility.

So it makes a difference. The act of snorting cocaine is one thing, and on the surface an irrelvant thing; the character flaw that caused the snortation is relevant and still present.

So then is it safe to assume that you thought the history of Adultery of the previous President was relevant? After all, I would think choosing person pleasure over your family would be a serious character flaw. Should we conclude that you voted for Bush Sr. and Dole because of this, as well as the Marijuana use flaw?

At least with the Adultery in this case was current. The drug use in both cases was decades ago.

I'll ask again, for those in President Bush's or Senator Kerry' age group, Are you the same person you were 30 years ago?

To me, what is relevant is what they do now, what they think now, and what the political beliefs are.

I don't believe it matters at all. If there is a positive aspect that could come from it, it would be that perhaps he would understand the user's problems and want to appropriate more funds for rehabilitation rather than incarceration. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush appears to not have made that connection just yet. Part of growing up is to make mistakes. Very few people out there can say they haven't tried an illegal product or did not consume alcohol before the legal age. I'm not quite certain how being addicted makes it mean more or less, though if he were addicted, he should be more gung-ho about alternatives to the current drug war fiasco.

To begin with here I can't believe we actually have a thread discussing a book by that "re-knowned historian", Kitty Kelly along with an anecdotal story by some Texas party girl who claims to have spotted Bush in Vail 20 years ago. One wonders if perhaps "his friend" might not have indeed been Elvis......

However, thanks to my friend on the left from "fly-over country" and formerly great college football, there is something here that does have an edge to it.




Well, I don't know about any cocaine stuff, but we are all aware that at one time President Bush did have a problem with alcohol. These days, a DUI is presumptive evidence of alcoholism, although it wasn't back when it happened to Bush. However, he did clean up his act and I don't know for sure, but I do have a feeling that one of the ways he was able to do that was through AA. AA is one of, if not the most successful addiction treatment programs there is. It's model has been copied over and over again by a variety of other addiction treatment programs including NA and GA. And, it's been copied for one reason - it works. Back when I was in college, I did a research paper for a sociology class I was taking on AA and part of my research was to attend a number of meetings to find out what they did that worked so well. Here's a clue, from the AA Website.......



The "famous 12 steps". If one examines them and looks for a single term to describe them, I would submit that "faith-based" would be an appropriate term. They work, the success of AA is undeniable and indeed is an example I believe of the first of the "faith-based" organizations. Now, I don't know if President Bush is a "friend of Bill W" or not and there would be no way to find that out, but his entire concept of using "faith-based" organizations to help people is most certainly much the same model as the one that AA uses, and it works. President Bush is a man of action and as such, it would make sense that he would look for programs to help people with problems that have a proven track record.

I'm not so sure about that. How many reformed smokers out there are now major advocates for banning smoking everywhere if not all together. It seems to me that many reformed users, formally addicted to (fill in politically incorrect product here) become the biggest zealots in the crusade against anyone using (fill in politically incorrect product here).

I would think for many Reformed drug addicts, the drug war would seem like the perfect solution.

My solution is legalization, but that is a completely different topic all together.

Point of information: Addiction is a disease. Do a Google on "addiction" and "disease" and you'll come up with over a million hits attesting to this medical fact. Using drugs is a choice - at least initially - but to dismiss addiction as some sort of character flaw is grossly irresponsible. That said, addiction is not, as Hero stated, a disease one overcomes. One can be "in recovery", but there is no cure. An addict is an addict for life.

I personally believe that George W Bush is an addict - and he's not even an addict in recovery. He is what is commonly known as a "dry drunk". I have outlined this here before - with sources pre-dating Kitty Kelly (though her book seems to confirm previous sources a well as adding a few even closer to home) - so I won't reiterate what is already covered in that previous posting. But I have seen nothing to disabuse me of the belief that President Bush was - and is - an addict.

Does it matter if Bush might have used cocaine on several occasions earlier in his life?

Were he a mere "occasional user", it probably wouldn't. While cocaine is a far more serious drug than cannabis - and highly addictive - I have known some very occasional users who were relatively unscathed. But we have accounts of his cocaine use from his college days through at least the late eighties - and that's twenty years of "occasional use" at a minimum. Combined with his serious alcohol abuse (it took Laura threatening to leave him and intervention from Billy Graham to get him to finally stop), which indicates a highly addictive personality, this does not strike me as someone who snorted a line at a party once. This strikes me as someone with a problem - and a problem which has never been treated. Addiction is one disease which cannot be "self-medicated".

Never mind the hypocrisy: most politicians are hypocritical on some level, though running a campaign on "character" is a bit rich. Never mind the lies: most politicians lie - especially about potentially damaging personal stuff. Never mind the arrests: he finally admitted to one of the DUIs after repeatedly lying about it and the alleged cocaine arrest (and community service sentence) has been expunged, if it ever occurred. Never mind the further allegation that it was because of cocaine in his system that he missed that National Guard physical (and perhaps several months of duty).

What we should mind, though, is that we have an untreated addict in the White House - and I believe it does affect his performance. No president, with the possible exception of Ronald Reagan, has needed as much "handling" and mediation (and he may have been in the early stages of Alzheimer's). No president since Nixon has been reported as having such violent outbreaks of temper (and he was totally insane). No president that I know of has been as obsessive, rigid, and judgmental. No president has been as lethargic - working fewer hours per day and fewer days per year than any president in history. Few presidents have had evident learning disabilities - and fewer have been quite as incoherent.

Now, all of those things may not be symptoms of a "dry drunk", but it certainly looks that way to me. Even in the unlikely event that they're not, such a man strikes me as being supremely unfit for office.

In the event he had and if he has since dealt successfully with any addiction he may or may not have had, does it/should it matter?

If he had dealt successfully with his addiction, it might not matter. Many alcoholics and drug addicts in recovery lead normal, productive lives. We know for a fact, though, that apart from threats from his wife, a stern talking-to from Rev. Graham, and an apparent religious conversion, George W Bush has had no treatment or counseling whatsoever.

He may have been sober for the past seventeen years (if he can be believed on this as on so little else), but he has not addressed the underlying problems - or any of the symptoms which go with his disease. So, yes, it does matter.

I would like to revise my opinion in line with yours Wertz. Addictive personalities stay addicts for life. It is a psychological, and chemical/genetic predisposition that commonly produces addicts, and as you said through treatment, many are able to overcome their condition. Also the "dry drunk" characterization is one that I was unaware of, and thank you for bringing it up, because whether or not it's actually the situation, it is a shoe that certainly fits. Many of us, I think, have read a lot on Bush's past, there are many decent autobiographies out there. I have only read Shrub, which is more about his political failings and successes. Bush's record definitly seems like one that would come from a college frat boy, who dove into a world of drinking, money, and later cocaine. It is arguable how long it took for him to get his nose out of the candy, but we know about his alcohol use. His life is a long list of falls that landed him higher than the platform he came from, a gift for being his fathers son. His failure likely drove his addictive tendencies further into the fog. Perhaps Laura bailed him out? I don't really care. With all the information against him all I can say is:

We should put Bush in prison for his irresponsible use of public money, as well as the murder of innocent Iraqi's, and while he's there he should be forced to go through drug treatment... unless he's already cut all the funding for drug treatment by that time to make room for bigger prisons...

Bush's drug use does not make him a bad person. I use drugs occasionally, and I don't think Im an evil cretenous slob. It is Bush's lack of accountability, his abysmal job performance, lack of compassion for people without fat bank accounts, and his uncaring acceptance of anything the christian right or big business ask him to do that makes him a bad person. Actually, I take it back, we should never ourselves decide what is good or bad, such distinctions are arbitrary. All that we can observe and judge is whether someones actions are productive or distructive to society. Bush is a distructive person.

I should add that I certainly don't think that Bush's drug use - or even his failure to seek treatment - make him a bad person either. This is a case of "more to be pitied than censured". But I do think it leaves him unfit for the job - and unsafe for America.

Nope, that's not a safe assumption at all overlandsailor.

Clinton had the vision thing for the first election. That got my vote. Bush senior being amazed at a checkout scanner gave this old high-techer the willies.

Clinton got my vote the second election due to having successfully met the right wing in the middle and balanced the budget. The vision thing worked. I also liked it that high tech was booming along, despite the dire warnings of Republicans that the economy would tank with Clinton in the WH.

His character flaws were minor when you look at his performance. The behavior of Congressional Republicans during the second term were simply embarassing and inexcusable partisan attacks to cripple the lame duck in an attempt to kill Gore's chances and stick a guy in office who would go to war without much thought.

And maybe allow 9/11? Well, that's arguable but plausable, given that our sitting President has several problems with thinking things through and expressing those superficial thoughts.

So it's the character flaw that I mentioned -- seeking the easy path and denying any mistakes or responsibility -- that makes President Bush unfit to continue duty.

I thought Clinton was an idiot to let the right wing hamstring him like he did, and I would not have voted for a third term. Fortunately, I did not have to make a decision that would have gone third party because Gore got the nomination, and he did have the vision continuation.

You see, there are two kinds of character flaws: Those that make us human and thereby fallable, and those that make us addicts and thereby dangerous.

As has been pointed out, a certain percentage of a population will have trouble with addiction, and this is likely genetic. From my 1970s studies of sociology and addiction, researchers back then put the level at 10%. Don't know if that level still holds, but I suspect so.

Contrast that with the percentage of married men who have cheated on their wives, or the percentage of US males who tried pot in the 1960s/70s.

Then think about the next term and who will be in office. When I do that, I'm expecting ever more twists and turns from an addicted driver with several pileups along the way. Time to get a different, unaddicted driver. Seems logical to me.

I am not impressed with your (and Google's) assertion that addiction is a
disease. Addiction is what happens when an individual, out of weakness
or lack of self-control, allows himself to become a slave to a practice,
a substance, etc..........

A cocaine addict is a cocaine addict because he allowed it to happen.

People who do not want to be 100% accountable for their actions and
choices would use the term disease.

GWB is a man who did not have the strength of character that
a man must have to avoid the pitfalls of drug use and/or drug addiction.

Doomed Planet,

If President Bush was ever addicted to cocaine or alcohol (and none of us know), then would be considered a stronger man for having kicked it?

Certainly we all have our pitfalls of youth and our intemperence. I would never like to be remembered for half the stuff i did as a teenager and even now in my early twenties I see things that I did jsut a couple years ago that were outta line with my philosphy.

I have a weakness, smoking. I love it and it is the most difficult thing to try and quit. I would consider myself 100% stronger if only I could quit. I know that if I keep trying one day I'll succeed and count myself that much stronger.

We all know that Presdient Bush is no longer a Coke addict or Alcoholic if he ever was, and no one here despite their assertions of his decisions could claim that he is now a weak man. At least no one around the rest of the world does.

In Arab countries my friends tell me that there is a new expression called: "Hitting them like George Bush". It sort of means to hit relentlessly and with conviction once you know you're right. Right being relative to people I suppose.

I don't know anyone who would consider President Bush weak.

John Locke, I must disagree.



Allright, I lied, I can agree with the fact that addicts whom are capable of resisting their addictions have performed a considerable feat of strength of will. However there are different ways to "escape" addiction. Two specifically that Wertz and I were referring to. There is treatment, where one overcomes denial, accepts the disease, finds the strength to overcome it, and prepares for the future fight against temptation. The other possibility is to accept the consequences of your disease, and agree to avoid those consequences, without accepting the scar of the disease, in fact without ever breaking down the denial built around the disease. This is how Bush pathologically acts. Iraq was a mistake. It is far too obvious. Not that there aren't positive ramifications that have occurred becuase of our involvement, as you will doubtlessly cite the ousting of Saddam as a proof of the war's legitimacy. The administration has been forced to drop several of their original pretenses for the war, because they weren't true, or they were just lying. In addition 94% of the extra funds that were taken from taxpayers this and last year haven't been spent, and the war is not going too well. In fact we're losing. And Bush would never admit it.



Good luck on that.



This is where I disagree, and I need to point out a gap in your logic. President Bush may be personally strong for turning from a drinkin-snortin texas fratboy to the non-drinking, non-coke-fiend president of the US, it doesn't make him a strong president or a strong leader. Bush is a strong political figure (president) because he happens to be president of the USA. The USA has been on a huge economic bonanza since the turn of the 20th century (despite a few bumps along the way) and has been dumping much of that Bonanza directly into new and interesting ways to kill people. Becuase of this, the USA represents the supreme military might on the planet. Bush is in no way responsible for the might of the US military, nor the spirit of the US military, if you're that patriotic.



Heh, that's cute. Except Im sure it's taken more as "To rain firey death from the clouds, and cover the ground with uncaring beasts armed with rifles and tanks who trample cities and napalm children." That would truly be "Hittin' em like GW." Really... as above Bush inherited the might of the military, so it can't be attributed to him as a personal strength.



My name is Chris Enyeart, nice to meet you. Now you do.



*(edited to fix some ugly stuff)

Whether you are "impressed" or not couldn't possibly be less relevant. Your "impressions" in no way change the medical facts. It's a pity you didn't try doing a search. You would have found that the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, in fact every major medical association in every civilized country in the world, as well as, obviously, organizations like the American Society of Addiction Medicine and the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry all - all - acknowledge that addiction is a disease. Nothing else: a disease.

I already stated that using drugs or alcohol in the first place is a matter of choice. But that does not mean that addiction is a matter of choice. What you are stating, DP, is that diabetes should not be considered a disease because people choose to eat foods which contain sugar, that lung cancer should not be considered a disease because people choose to smoke cigarettes, that heart disease is not a disease because people choose to have poor diets and avoid exercise. You may personally disapprove of the character of those who consume sugar or tobacco products, you may find people who don't go to the gym every other day morally weak - but that in no way implies that the consequences of their choices are not medical conditions.


No, people with a modicum of medical knowledge - or who have spent five seconds researching the subject - would use the term disease. People who don't give a damn whether the epidemic of drug abuse and alcoholism which is afflicting our country ever gets addressed would use the term weak character. Such an attitude saddens me. It is a sign of how little progress has been made in terms of treating diseases like alcoholism and drug addiction. As long as we choose to view these diseases as legal problems or moral problems, they will never get any better.


"That a man must have"? And what about women? Are they allowed "weaker character"? I will grant you that becoming a regular user of a drug like cocaine is inordinately stupid and, yes, a bad choice - for men or women. But once one becomes an addict, it is a medical problem. Addiction creates a physical and psychological change in a person which can be diagnosed and treated. Withdrawal sickness is just that: a sickness, a physical ailment with measurable physiological effects. Considering these diseases issues of character or morality is as counterproductive a stance as it is humanly possible to take.

That is one of the reasons that Bush is such a hypocrite in this regard: he'd be the first to agree that drug addicts are moral midgets with flawed characters - and that they should be judged and punished rather than treated. It's sick.

I agree with you that George W Bush has some serious character flaws - but, though I believe he is an addict, that's not one of them.

A medical fact is nothing more than an agreed upon opinion, of a bunch
of practitioners who have vested interests in medical treatment of as
many diseases they can conjure up.



With all due respect, Wertz, I do not consider such organizations to be 100%
correct and flawless. I put absolutely NO stock in anything the American
Psychiatric Association has to say. So, for me to google myself into each website
would undermine my own personal experiences with addiction. I've been addicted
to cigarettes, coffee, sugar. If you want to share the term disease, and make it
stick across the board, do it. I do not agree with that statement, because the
connotation is that the addict had/has no accountability for his addiction. That is
how more addicts are born - give them the leeway to mess up their lives royally,
then assure them it's a disease with which they had no responsibilty in bringing
on......



They are part and parcel of each other. A man chooses to smoke pot, likes it,
continues to do it, after a while feels he cannot stop, there's the addiction. It's his
own creation, done by his own volition. In cases of drugs and the physical
addiction that occurs, it is addiction with adverse effects to the body.



My grandma developed late-life diabetes because she had terrible discipline
problems regarding food. She ate whatever, whenever, and she paid the price.
Diabetes was what resulted from her addiction to food. The real point I'm trying
to make is that we generally associate the term disease with organisms
impairing physiological function (as in mumps, measles, genetic defects, etc.).
Alcohol and drug addiction are very different and should not fall under the
same definition, thus, misleading people.



Sure, the consequences of their choices may require medical attention. That does
not a disease them make. It's simply cause and effect.



Nice assumption, but you're wrong. I care more than most people about drug
abuse and alcoholism. Without delving into my personal life story I will say that
two people in my most immediate family have addiction problems. I'm not willing,
however, to sugar coat what addiction is . My philosophy is: If you got
yourself addicted and you are ready to find your way out, I'll go the distance to
help you out. But, darn it, you better take responsibility for the fact that you put
yourself in that messed up spot, and it will take some hard work and personal
accountability on your part if you want to find your way out!



But, they are moral problems, Wertz. What is right and wrong for oneself is a
moral issue. If I'm throwing my life down the toilet, because I've gotten myself
hooked on speed, no medicine will cure me of the morality that caused me to take
the path of addiction.



Indeed.



Yes, the first priority is to treat the medical conditions that go along with
addiction. Once that has been addressed the issue of one's character and morality
must be addressed? What made this guy decide to throw his life away?
That is a question that deals with the person's own moral code.



Well, unlike GWB, I'm not saying we need to judge them. I'm saying they
need to take full responisibilty for their actions. They cannot be allowed to
dodge accountability, if they ever want to reclaim their integrity.

Okay, you seem to have a highly personal definition of the word "disease" - one which would exclude cancer, heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, cirrhosis, leukemia, muscular dystrophy, epilepsy, Addison's disease, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, and a host of other... um, I'm not sure what you would have me call them - character flaws? I tend to go by the dictionary definition: a disease is "a condition that impairs normal functioning". By that definition (courtesy of Merriam-Webster), how can you not consider addiction a disease?

I disagree that having contracted a disease relieves one of accountability, though - and that is where I think we must agree to part company. People who consume too much sugar or fat or tobacco or alcohol or cocaine or who don't button up their overcoats are of course accountable for any damage they may do themselves - and that would include President Bush.

I should add that I, too, am extremely suspect of the medical industry and do not presume that organizations like the AMA and WHO are 100% flawless. But when 100% of such organizations (many without a financial motivation) all reach the same conclusion, I begin to suspect that they may be onto something.

There are a number of issues that you raise here which are worth discussing, but they would certainly derail this thread. To tie this back to the topic at hand (and re-cap my position):

Should President Bush be held accountable for his addiction? Absolutely.

Should we consider his prolonged alcohol and drug use a character flaw? Sure, yeah.

Should we consider his addiction to those substances a character flaw rather than a disease? I don't think so, no.

But: does his addiction - and his refusal to seek medical attention for it - impair his ability to perform the as President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Forces? Hell yeah.

And that, to again answer the question for debate, matters. In fact, it terrifies me.

By my examples, it would seem that way. What I meant to say was that
substance-abuse should not be categorized with the diseases that you have
mentioned.



For sure!!



I can respect your position on that.



Yes, I took it a bit off topic - sorry 'bout that.



We do not necessarily have to consider it a character flaw, but it should be
considered when deciding if we want this guy running our country for
another four years.

Doomed Planet,

I had forgotten Plato's admonition - your sig line. It may help me make up my mind about for whom my own vote will be cast.

Each day, my major worry is not when and if the U.S. will be attacked by people like Bin Laden. Instead, my worry is focused on the certainty that what is happening in Iraq is having the exact worldwide effect of what the planners of that operation never expected nor anticipated.

It is true that Saddam is gone but his replacements are to be feared by US more than was he.

We are not using intelligence and covert operations to strike at the beheaders. Instead, we have an army that cannot fight like an army because of the damage it would do to the civilian population. None of these calculations were addressed going in.

I am eager to see the tense meeting at the U.N. tomorrow. These are truly awful times.