Bush and cocaine: the President's moral values

[jokerswild]

Candidate: President George Bush


Many people can answer a simple yes or no to this question. But not old goergy...

by Adam J. Smith
First he refused to confirm or deny it. Later he would say only that "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Next he said that the issue wasn't relevant. Then he said that he wouldn't address "rumors." Then he said that he could pass a standard security check dating back seven years. Finally, he said that he could've passed the security check in his father's White House -- fifteen years. Though he had to think before specifying whether he could've passed it then or now. Now, no matter what he says, the issue seems destined to dog him until the day he comes clean.
Texas Governor and Republican presidential frontrunner George W. Bush, Jr. has a cocaine problem.

Under normal circumstances, an individual's past drug use, especially if that use occurred in the distant past, should not be relevant to their qualifications for present employment. But in the race for the United States Presidency, it is relevant on two counts. In fact, in Governor Bush's case, it is relevant on three.

As governor of Texas, George W. Bush, Jr. supported and signed legislation increasing penalties for drug possession in that state. In one instance, Governor Bush signed legislation mandating jail time for people caught with less than a single gram of cocaine. As a candidate, Bush's handling of the cocaine question offers clues as to how he deals with embarrassing mistakes -- admit them and move on, or obfuscate and side-step. As President, Governor Bush would preside over a national drug policy that is increasingly punitive, the driving force behind the nation's ascendancy to the title of world's most prolific incarcerator.

In 1992, Republicans asked whether Democratic candidate Bill Clinton could summon the moral authority to send young people to war, given the fact that he had successfully avoided military service during his youth. Today, Governor Bush must be asked whether he can summon the moral authority to send young people to prison, given the fact that he had avoided the DEA in his youth.

It is becoming increasingly clear that George Junior most likely did toot a line or two back in his halcyon days. The relevant question, then, is whether or not he believes that five or ten years in prison would have been the appropriate societal response to that use. And if not, why he believes that such treatment is appropriate for the children of fathers who were not Ambassadors to China, Directors of the CIA, Vice Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief.

The truth is that George Junior was never in much danger of being treated like less fortunate Americans who get sucked into our runaway criminal justice system. As the rich son of a powerful man, it is unlikely that he would have been pulled over, searched, or busted in a street sweep. Rich people don't buy their coke on the street, in quarter gram increments. And if by some strange confluence of events he had been caught and arrested -- rather than sent on his way with a wave of his ID -- he would have certainly had an expensive attorney, and a spot waiting for him at the Betty Ford Clinic. The judge would likely have wished him well in his recovery. It would've taken an act of God or else an act of monumental stupidity on his own part for George Junior to have ever seen the inside of an American prison for drug possession.

But now he's running for president. And the questions keep coming. And his answers keep changing. And try as he might to create a statute of limitations for questions about his personal life, there is no such statute for hypocrisy.



Sending people to prison, increasing their sentences by the stroke of his pen for the very behavior that he now claims is irrelevant in his own history, does not speak well for the honor or the conscience of the man. George W. Bush Jr. has a cocaine problem. But he's got a big lead in the polls, and more than thirty million dollars in the bank. He'll suffer an awful long time before he hits bottom. Right now, pathetic as it is to watch, his evasive machinations in the face of confrontation can only mean one thing. He's still in denial.

[wacki]

You could make the same case against Clinton, but for weed. The drug war in this country is a sham and artificially creates massive profits the drug Czars.

If what you say is true, I agree, it ain't right. But neither was it with Clinton. We wage a war against drugs and then elect a convicted crack felon Marion Barry, the Mayor of DC.

Drug war/policies have always been a sham.

Read "The big white lie" by Michael Levine as well as "Deep Cover" to see how bad it really is. Michael Levine, once called "America's top undercover cop for 25 years" by 60 MINUTES, is america's most accomplished DEA agent. His brother died from Heroin so he became a DEA agent. Now he is against the current war on drugs, and if you read his books you will see why.

[ACPlayer]

... but only when you use it to attack the democrats.

[cardcounter0]

I thought it only applied to oral sex.

[daryn]

wait.. slow down...


bush did cocaine???


wow! what a bad guy!

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
wait.. slow down...


bush did cocaine???


wow! what a bad guy!

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, I wouldn't care if he snorted a Kilo in his youth. Freud did it, too, again who cares. But his debate was based on hypocrisy. That has legitimate value. But then again fighting for peoples right to use drugs is political suicide. Then again, he did do a 180 quit drinking, partying, etc. So maybe he is wiser because of it. Honestly I don't know, and don't really care, the drug war is a sham anyway. I hope they legalize the stuff and then tax the hell out of it and stop wasting my tax $$$$.

[daryn]

i'm sure he admits he has made a mistake in using drugs.

how is it hypocrisy? in my mind hypocrisy would be if he still snorts coke behind the scenes.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
i'm sure he admits he has made a mistake in using drugs.

how is it hypocrisy? in my mind hypocrisy would be if he still snorts coke behind the scenes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, you win.

I just don't agree with raising already stiff sentences for something he might of done? Seriously 1 night of fun can cost you 10 years of your life! Ouch. Thank god I'm an alcoholic.

Got to love the PITU!

Hey where in Boston are you? I'm in Woods Hole.

[daryn]

living 8 miles north in woburn.


i understand your point also, but it's not just 1 night of fun, drugs can mess up a lot of people's lives, not just the user.

that said, i'm not sure how i feel about stiff drug penalties. it seems like if drugs were legalized, there's be less crime, etc. but is it really a good idea? i don't know.

[wacki]

Your right drugs can ruin your life very easily. At the same time some people can use them and live long productive lives. It's a combination of genetics and the pattern of use. AKA education, discipline, and the lottery of life.

I tend to be a hardcore believer in Laissez fare or basically "let the people do as they want.", or "If I'm not bothering you, don't bother me". Which I guess makes me a hardcore liberal, at least on domestic issues. I also don't think other people should be forced to pay my medical bills if I abuse my body. Just my view though. Just for the record, I don't smoke. I drink, but that's it. But I fully support the right for someone who owns a bar to have a smoking bar, something that doesn't happen in Boston.

I also pay attention to the lessons of history. I understand perfect pictures don't work and history repeats itself. And history tells us, via Holland and other sources, that legalization is the better way to go. Decreasing the demand/increasing the supply by slapping dealers on the wrist and really nailing the users to the wall also works. But it has its drawbacks.

History also tells us that Laissez fare does not work in foreign politics, so I guess I am a bit conservative in that area.

I'm a mutt. But that is my general philosophy. Try and make a picture perfect life via "Live and let be" yet listen to the lessons of history.

Ever go to Foxwoods?