"He was never an alcoholic. It's just he knows he can't hold his liquor." - former President George Herbert Bush, about his eldest son.
When George W. Bush quit drinking for good at age 40, it closed a sometimes unfocused chapter in his life and set into motion a period in which perhaps the "drug of choice" had changed but not, evidently, the associated behaviors.
That previous chapter had also, in the 1970s, included a stint smoking cigarettes and, later, chewing tobacco. Reminiscing about those heady days, during the 2000 presidential campaign, then-candidate Bush mused, "The coolest thing of all was to light up a butt."
A drug is a drug is a drug, as they say.
So, now, the question becomes: Is President Bush (or, as I call him, "Emperor Dubya") a so-called 'dry drunk'?
The definition of "dry drunk" (from http://alcoholism.about.com) reads: "A colloquial term generally used to describe someone who has stopped drinking, but who still demonstrates the same alcoholic behaviors and attitudes."
These attitudes can include judgmental and childish behavior, polarized thinking, obsessive thought patterns, and grandiosity.
In other words, behaviors in direct opposition to his claim to be a "sensitive, compassionate and open-minded leader."
As early as January 2000, during a campaign speech in which he reflected on the 'Cold War' era, Bush stated, "...it was a dangerous world and we knew exactly who the 'they' were. It was us versus them and we knew exactly who them was. Now we're not so sure who the 'they' are, but we know they're there." ("American Unilateralism is Back", Observer UK, 27 January '02)
No doubt, the early makings of "self-will run riot".
Bush's judgmental behavior, and polarized "us versus them" thinking was no more evident than in his treatment of various world leaders in the weeks after 'Iraq War II: The Mother of All Skirmishes'.
To quote:
"President George W. Bush rewarded Australian Prime Minister John Howard for his staunch support for the Iraq war with a ride on Air Force One and a prized overnight stay at his Texas ranch...
... He joins an "A-list" of world leaders in Bush's good books who have visited the Prairie Chapel ranch, including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin.
Howard's treatment contrasts sharply with that meted out to leaders of nations which opposed the US-led war with Iraq, particularly French President Jacques Chirac.
Article comments
1 - Aaron
How original...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/05/25/IN226761.DTL
2 - Tom Johnson
Really stretching the armchair psychoanalysis with this one - sounds like someone's been hanging out with the PSY101 students a bit too much.
Just like with the rampant conspiracy theories, it's really easy to read a lot more into something you don't really know about. But I do admire the sheer amount of time you dedicated to this. Lots of circular logic and finger-pointing. Take the issue of the economy - it's real easy to lay blame on Bush, but I don't see a bit of commentary about the man who is really responsible for the state of the economy today: Clinton. Were it not for his administration, the stock market would have never soared to the unrealistic heights that it did. It may never recover, but that is not due to Bush but to the fact that the market can stay artificially stimulated only so long before it collapses.
I really wonder how all the anti-Bush folk are going to take it when he is reelected in 2004. You all seem to base so much worth in the belief that EVERYONE agrees with you, when Bush's approval rating is still quite high. If the "middle-east road map" initiative works out, you can write off any hopes of kicking him out of office - you know this, right?
3 - Brian Flemming
Clinton seemed to take great pleasure in the Presidency as well, although it seemed to me the attention was what he thrived on.
For Bush it seems to be the exercise of power that gets him off. Secrecy, arrogance, suprises...oh, yeah, and war.
4 - Al Barger
Would any of you consider it vaguely possible that Dubya is not primarily motivated by cheap psycho-problems, but that he really thinks he is doing the best, smartest things he can do to help the country? Is that a possibility?
5 - Brian Flemming
Al,
Yes, it is within the realm of possibility.
There is, unfortunately, a vast amount of evidence to indicate President Bush and others in his Administration are willing to lie to the American people, conduct the people's business in secret, wage an unnecessary war, allow undue influence by campaign contributors, look the other way at criminal behavior and abuse the powers of the Justice Department to maintain their grip on the White House.
Still, it is still technically POSSIBLE that George W. Bush is acting in the best interests of the nation.
It is also possible that O.J. Simpson is still interested in finding the "real killers."
6 - Al Barger
Brian, I'd just like to promote a little clarity of thinking. By the OJ line at the conclusion, you are clearly unwilling to accept as a serious possibility that Bush is making what he at least thinks to be an honest effort to do what is best for the American people.
Are you saying that he's crazy, mentally disturbed, like the premise of this piece? Or are you simply saying that you think he's a crook, purposely acting against what he knows to be the proper interests of America in order to benefit himself?
7 - Peter Petrisko
Al wrote:
"Would any of you consider it vaguely possible that Dubya is not primarily motivated by cheap psycho-problems, but that he really thinks he is doing the best, smartest things he can do to help the country? Is that a possibility?"
Sure, it's a possibility. And ask any practicing alcoholic if he/she "is doing the best, smartest things he can do", and they'd probably say "yes" too.
Their best thinking got them where they are today.
That said, one doesn't have to be practicing to display "alcoholic behavior". It's an addiction mindset, often amplified by the drug of choice.
Whether that be alcohol, illegal drugs, or power.
To Aaron: There are no original ideas, only the recycling of old ones. No matter what you say (or write), chances are somebody else has already done it.
It's what you do with those ideas that counts.
8 - Aaron
"There are no original ideas, only the recycling of old ones. No matter what you say (or write), chances are somebody else has already done it."
That's ridiculous. Maybe new ideas build on old ones, but "recycling?"
I wouldn't call the "dry drunk" hypothesis an old idea. van Wormer's piece ran Sunday. This piece was posted Tuesday.
9 - SlackMFer
just to clarify, i thought that unilateral meant, "Performed or undertaken by only one side." and yet, everyone refers to the war with Iraq as unilateral. i was pretty sure we HAD allies, but maybe every country except france and germany are all considered "one."
[and i know that france and germany were not the only countries opposed, but i was making a point. by the way, this is a "preemptive strike"]