news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=u … earch+News
So that’s how George talks to God. Smoke 'em if you got 'em…
Far be it from Bush to set a bad example for our children!
Maybe he can share a room with Rush Limbaugh in the drug treatment facility. Let’s not forget Bush’s coke-head past BTW.
Well, let’s post the article. It’s easier to pick apart then. First thing, The “friend” who taped the conversation is real shit head.
Bush caught on tape admitting to Marijuana use PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY
AM - Monday, 21 February , 2005 08:08:00
Reporter: John Shovelan
TONY EASTLEY: A so-called family friend of US President George W. Bush secretly recorded the then Governor Bush apparently admitting to using marijuana.
In the tape George W. Bush indicates that he did use marijuana, but says if he’s questioned by reporters on the subject he will decline to answer. He’s heard to say on the tape he wouldn’t admit to using it because children might be influenced to try it because the President did.
The nine hours of tapes were surreptitiously recorded from 1998 to 2000 as the then governor prepared to run for the White House.
From Washington John Shovelan reports.
JOHN SHOVELAN: The year was 1998, just as George W. Bush was deciding whether to run for the White House. And as he weighed his chances he often turned to a family friend, Doug Wead.
Mr Wead had acted as a liaison between George W Bush’s father and the Evangelical churches. But unbeknownst to then Governor Bush, nine hours of those conversations were secretly recorded.
GEORGE BUSH: I don’t think they’re going to find anybody who will dare say, you know, I screwed somebody or that I used drugs.
DOUG WEAD: (laughs) We’re prayin’ for ya that you’ll survive.
JOHN SHOVELAN: The tapes show George W. Bush thinking through his political strategy for maintaining support of both Christian conservatives and moderate voters.
He was worried most that his notorious private life as a younger man might come back to haunt him. So much so he at one time he even expressed sympathy for former President Bill Clinton.
[b]He criticised the then Vice President Al Gore mimicking his opponent’s speaking style for admitting marijuana use.
GEORGE BUSH: Al Gore, I tried it, it wasn’t part of my life.[/b]
JOHN SHOVELAN: [b]And the Texas governor explained why he wouldn’t be admitting to his own use of marijuana.
GEORGE BUSH: (inaudible) it doesn’t matter ?cocaine, it’d be the same with marijuana. I wouldn’t answer the marijuana question.
DOUG WEAD: Uh-hunh.
GEORGE BUSH: Do you know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doin’ what I tried.
DOUG WEAD: Yeah, and it never stops, the question.
GEORGE BUSH: But you gotta understand, I want to be President, I want to lead, I want to set?do you want your little kid to say hey Daddy, President Bush tried marijuana, I think I will?[/b]
JOHN SHOVELAN: The White House hasn’t disputed the authenticity of the tapes.
And a voice analyst, Tom Owen says the voice is that of the President.
TOM OWEN: Yes, it’s my opinion that it is the voice of George Bush.
JOHN SHOVELAN: A White House spokesman said the governor was having a casual conversation with someone he considered a friend.
Mr Wead says he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr bush as a historic figure.
DOUG WEAD: I believed if he became President he would be a pivotal figure in history, and it was very natural for me, I never expected or wanted the tapes to become public.
JOHN SHOVELAN: And he says the release wasn’t engineered to gain publicity for a book he’s written on presidential childhoods.
John Shovelan, Washington.
Premiscuous sex? Do you mean premeniscus – ie., doing it on your knees?
In any event, I also was struck by Bush’s dishonest and hypocritical approach to the marijuana issue.
[quote]Mr. Bush. . . refused to answer reporters’ questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Mr. Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”
He mocked Vice President Al Gore for acknowledging marijuana use. “Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don’t do them,” he said. [/quote]
nytimes.com/2005/02/20/polit … 7e&ei=5070
EDIT: I see JDSmith just posted on the subject and my response is that claiming Bush did not admit to using pot, as you do above, is like claiming that he didn’t state that Iraq had WMDs, because he only made it abundantly clear through implication, rather than explication. The fact that he smoked it is no biggie. For one to have not smoked it is a little odd. It’s the fact that he’s a liar and a hypocrite that bothers me. I also agree that his “friend” who made the secret tapes is an asshole, but that’s another issue entirely.
Mr. Wead is indeed a crap weasel for his shameless exploitation of his ‘friendship’ with then twice elected Govenor of Texas George W. Bush.
His timing for cashing in on his covertly taped private conversations with then Govenor Bush is about the only positive aspect of this situation.
President Bush is not very likely to be harmed by the ‘revelations’ of the tapes. His supporters will not likely be challenged by what is brought out. His detractors will just be again shown for the mindless hate bots that have one simple agenda - “I hate Bush.”
Not much new in either camp.
So…IMO the only response I have is…ho hum.
The point is though MT, what the headline states is NOT proven in the article. I too feel that Bush somking pot is a dead issue as he is clean now and has been clean for years. I am not claiming he didn’t. I’m just saying this is YET another example of ignorant/poor/or worse, yellow journalism.
The closest thing I can get to an admission from the NYTimes article is when Bush said, “I don’t want them to know or do what I TRIED.” or something like that. NOw this is very very thin IMO. And is it justifiable enough to print an article in a major newspaper? Why not find Bush’s nudie mags from college and expose the fact that he beat off to Marylin Monroe?
Seems to be horseshit rumor mongering to me and it means absolutely nothing to the present situation the US is in.
Edit: Ah yes, and like TC, my reaction and response are both…"WHO CARES?
Definitely not horshit rumor mongering in the NYT. Their article simply discusses the fact that the tapes have been released and contains a perfectly inocuous headline:
In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President
Moreover, while they’ll hardly affect the Shrub, now that he’s been reelected, the tapes are historically significant and they are the president’s actual words, so they don’t qualify as rumor-mongering.
Actually, one other thing that strikes me about the whole issue is that I was under the impression that in most states in the US it is illegal to tape record a person without their consent. . . and then publish the tapes.
MT -
Re:taping private conversations, you are correct for the most part.
However in a small number of states it is permissable if one party is aware of the taping. A very strange and controversial legality.
Definitely not horshit rumor mongering in the NYT. Their article simply discusses the fact that the tapes have been released and contains a perfectly inocuous headline:
In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President
Moreover, while they’ll hardly affect the Shrub, now that he’s been reelected, the tapes are historically significant and they are the president’s actual words, so they don’t qualify as rumor-mongering.
Actually, one other thing that strikes me about the whole issue is that I was under the impression that in most states in the US it is illegal to tape record a person without their consent. . . and then publish the tapes.[/quote]
The rumor mongering snap was at the other article. Fair enough. And I agree, where the hell is even a COMMENT that the tapes were illegal?
It’s funny that the guy’s name is Wead. It sounds just like the word “weed”.
Although he was saying he did not want to admit using marijuana because then he wouldn’t be a respectable role model, that was certainly an issue that he believed would get him criticized. Possibly he wouldn’t become the president if that secret had leaked out. I believe that is closer to the truth than what he said in the interview about model behavior.
Bush smoked pot? 
Woop dee freakin’ do.
His past use of alcohol/drugs and been addressed over and over again.
Who hasn’t done something they didn’t regret 20 years ago, or when they were in their teens?
Cast the first stone anyone?
People can change.
[quote=“Josefus”]Bush smoked pot?
Woop dee freakin’ do.
His past use of alcohol/drugs and been addressed over and over again.
Who hasn’t done something they didn’t regret 20 years ago, or when they were in their teens?
Cast the first stone anyone?
People can change.[/quote]
All true. Except that it is the administration’s policy to put people in jail for doing what GWB did. If he feels so strongly that drugs should be illegal and people should serve time for using, why doesn’t he turn himself in and start serving his sentence.
Oh, wait. Those who are clamoring for “zero tolerance” for drug users are mostly over age 40. I guess once you get to be over 40, you should be forgiven. It’s only young people who should go to jail for these crimes.
[quote]All true. Except that it is the administration’s policy to put people in jail for doing what GWB did. If he feels so strongly that drugs should be illegal and people should serve time for using, why doesn’t he turn himself in and start serving his sentence.
Oh, wait. Those who are clamoring for “zero tolerance” for drug users are mostly over age 40. I guess once you get to be over 40, you should be forgiven. It’s only young people who should go to jail for these crimes.[/quote]
I apologize because I am busy and cannot do the search on my own. But could you please show me where the Bush Administration has changed pre-existing drug laws and penalties?
As for the young people only. This is just crap on a stick. Most of the people getting busted in Albany NY, where I’m from are dealers over 40.
First of all, people don’t go to jail for the crime of “trying marijuana”.
Second, I’m no lawyer, but I’m sure the statute of limitations has passed by now.
This is so insulting, I have to protest, dammit!
Bush might or might not have been a pothead. Personally, I think if he was, he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq for any reason, and gays would’ve been marrying all across the US.
What stands above any questioning, is that the man was a COKE head and had a serious drinking problem.
I have no problem with that, but gawd knows let’s stick to the proven, and confessed, facts. :fume:
What I have a problem with is that his past use of drugs and alcohol seem to have permanently damaged his brain. That isn’t such a bad thing in itself, heck half of my best friends are drug addicts, but when an obvious burn out is elected president of the united states, oh sorry, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES! then you really have to wonder about a goodly half of the electorate of that country. I love them to hell but I wouldn’t elect my burn out buddies president of the sandwhich club. Too dangerous.
Republicans gave Clinton hell for smoking pot and dodging the draft, and now turn a blind eye to Bush’s history of alcohol and drug abuse and getting his daddy to pull strings so he could avoid 'Nam.
Democrats defended Clinton’s past actions in his personal life as unimportant, but now that it’s a Republican president in office, are giving Bush hell for the same things they turned a blind eye when it was Clinton.
“It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.”
At least have the decency to try and be a little consistent instead of so mindlessly partisan.
Think the above is the best point which has been made so far on the topic.
However, since the Republicans are always the ones harping on morality, zero-tolerance, and so forth, to me it seems justified in pointing out this hypocricy - and the Democrats can’t be blamed for playing up that aspect
Moreover, Bush has such a (undeserved, in my opinion) reputation for being a straight-talking, call a spade a spade kinda guy.
Now, I don’t know about you, but when Clinton said “I tried it once but I didn’t inhale” I sincerely wished he’d have just come out and said what a lot of us would love to tell the press if we’d been him: “Yes, I smoked it - and I liked it! Are you ever telling me you never did? And did you ever drink alcohol when you were underage? Ever driven over the speeding limit? Cheated on your girlfriend? So piss off! Oh, and by the way, since we’re on the topic, why don’t we discuss why this stuff is illegal to begin with!”
We all know why he didn’t say those things: because A) he’s a yes man who says what he perceives the public wants to hear, true enough and B) there’s this fucking Puritanical streak in American society which unfortunately has a disproportionately high voter turnout - and those bastards would never forgive a candidate for speaking so candidly (this is also, as has been mentioned before, why no candidate who admits to being an atheist will ever get elected in the US.)
Now getting back to my ‘what he should’ve said’ statement: it seems to me that that’s what Mr. call-a-spade-a-spade President would’ve said, were he really the straight talker he’s made out to be.
He should have said “Yes, I tried it and look at what it did to me! Learn from my negative example kids” That guy is so obviously suffering the effects of brain damage it is not funny. It is mostly apparent in those little gaps that appear in his train of thought. It is like the synapses are firing away there happily along on their way to constructing something like a coherent idea when suddenly they hit a sort of black hole. Or in those moments when he is saying something so preposterous that even he knows crazy it is and he gets this “Wow, this is just like an acid flashback” look on his face. Or in his case perhaps delirium tremors.
Bush isn’t being a hypocrite, in this instance. Clinton was, though. Clinton said he didn’t inhale, which we all know is bullshit. Bush says he refuses to discuss his drug-taking. This stance, I admire. He’s right – he doesn’t now, and hasn’t for years, there’s no point wasting time making a big deal of it in the press, and so the whole issue is no one’s business and should be dead.
The hypocrisy is that he likes putting people in jail for doing
what he did…
workingforchange.com/article … emid=18611
Bush keeps dodging as addicts rot in prison
President has no interest in fixing a system that worked
for him
On the audiotapes of George W. Bush recorded secretly by his
erstwhile confidant Douglas Wead in 1999, the future
President revealed how much he feared candid discussion of
his personal use of marijuana and cocaine. As quoted in The
New York Times, Mr. Bush vowed that no matter what rumors
and facts circulated about what he did or might have done,
he would doggedly decline to answer forthrightly.
His natural urge to protect his own privacy evokes sympathy,
however quaint his expectations might be at this point in
our political history. But in justifying his refusal to talk
about his foolish youth, he appealed to a higher purpose.
“I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions,” he told
Mr. Wead. “You know why? Because I don’t want some little
kid doing what I tried.”
For many American parents of a certain age, that
self-serving yet poignant response must strike an empathetic
chord. Concern that children will mimic parental misbehavior
is universal, and so is the impulse to conceal embarrassing
truths. Mr. Bush rightly worries that children imitate adult
models in the belief that they too can escape the
consequences.
When Mr. Bush uttered those words into the tape recorder, he
was in his second term as Governor of Texas and on his way
to the White House. After all, if he could drink too much,
smoke those forbidden herbs and perhaps even snort illegal
powders, and nevertheless become a baseball magnate and
successful politician, then “some little kid” might
reasonably assume that he or she could sin likewise without
undue risk.
Any such assumption would be terribly mistaken, of course,
unless the kid happened to belong to a wealthy and
well-connected family like the Bush clan. Prisons and jails
across the country are crowded with nonviolent drug
offenders whose lives have been ruined – and whose families
have been damaged or destroyed – by the same punitive legal
system that never touched young “Georgie,” except to issue
him a drunk-driving summons.
The poor and the black are incarcerated for using pot and
coke, while the rich and the white lie to their kids (and
occasionally to the voters) about those same transgressions.
Certainly that was how the justice system worked when
Mr. Bush and Mr. Wead had their candid chats. The Texas
politician couldn’t reassure his friend that he hadn’t used
cocaine, let alone marijuana, but as governor he was
imprisoning young men and women unlucky enough to be
arrested in possession of those narcotics, often for
draconian mandatory-minimum sentences. He always cherished
his image as a tough, swaggering, law-and-order politician
who didn’t hesitate to imprison teenagers.
But that isn’t what happens to people from good
families. His niece Noelle Bush went through a
drug-rehabilitation program and was released two years
ago. His friend Rush Limbaugh went through rehab and has
returned to berating the less fortunate on the radio,
without doing one day of time.
The lopsided cruelty has only escalated since Mr. Bush
entered the White House. Federal agents have cracked down on
medical users of marijuana, depriving them of a substance
that eases their sickness and keeps them alive. The human
and economic costs of the drug war continue to swell. So
burdensome are those costs that many conservatives,
including such Bush tutors as former Secretary of State
George Shultz, have publicly pleaded for saner policies.
Despite his claims to be a “compassionate conservative,”
Mr. Bush has ignored those pleas. He seems to feel that if
he overcame his substance-abuse problem (as a youthful and
healthy millionaire, with a loving wife and supportive
friends and family), then nobody else really has an excuse.
No reporter ever asked the Texas governor why all those
other people deserved to serve five or 10 or 20 years in
prison, when their crimes were no different from what
everyone knew he had done, whether he admitted it or not. No
reporter will ask the President that question today, either,
although it is just as pertinent in light of his revealing
conversations with Mr. Wead (who incidentally claims to
possess many more tapes that he will “never” release).
Indeed, Mr. Bush not only avoided public responsibility for
his own past mistakes but found a clever way to turn those
wayward years to political advantage. He brandishes his late
return to sobriety as a symbol of his Christian faith.
On those telltale tapes, Mr. Bush can be heard telling
Mr. Wead how he’d learned a couple of “really good lines”
from James Robison, an evangelical minister and hard-line
conservative. “What you need to say time and time again is
not talk about the details of your transgressions, but talk
about what I have learned,” he said. “I’ve sinned and I’ve
learned.”
It is hard to tell what Mr. Bush learned in his recovery
from sin, except that other people got caught and he
didn’t. That would be enough to make anybody smirk.