Skip to main content

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

According to the National Enquirer, George W. & Laura Bush are in the middle of a "Booze Crisis"...

...Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura privately warned her husband against "falling off the wagon" and vowed to travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources add.

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one insider. "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop George!"

"Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.' She doesn't want to replay that nightmare -- especially now when it's such tough going for her husband."

...Now I know the source is a tabloid, but sometimes the National Enquirer reports things better than the Washington Post. However, they used to have President Clinton & Hillary getting divorced every other week too.

So let me play psychiatrist... I've always thought that part of the reason why Bush won't reconsider any policy is in part due to his "12 step/Christian Dogma Recovery" from alcoholism. He follows a strict set of rules in order to keep from drinking. He has to follow through & can't deviate no matter what. To admit his Iraq or tax policy was wrong upsets the order of his life in the same way he keeps from drinking by following through with the plan. No matter what the reality of the situation may dictate, he has a fear of change.

Maybe some real psychiatrists can comment on this...

Update [2005-9-22 11:44:31 by Rimjob]:

Many have posted how Bush has NEVER took part in an AA/12 step program. Instead, he claims his faith has been strong enough to overcome drinking. However, I still have the same question. Does he have some sort of dogmatic process that he uses to keep from drinking, that he can't deviate from? And does that same rigidity transfer over to his view of policy?

Originally posted to 医生的宫殿 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:58 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Went (4.00)
    If you ask me, he has been going to go wenting for a long time, he did.

    "When you starve the beast, you starve the people. And the bathtub was a reference to New Orleans." -- bink

    by bink on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:00:39 PM PDT

  •  I believe it. (none)
    Also, I heard that annoying twitching jaw of his is a sign of a cocaine user.
    •  Probably not cocaine, but possibly... (4.00)
      ..another substance affecting the dopaminergic system. The jaw-thrusting is a classic indication that something is out of whack.

      While I'm not a doctor, some of my best friends are -- and they are mostly definitely observing changes in George Bush. For an FYI, see this comment from a previous thread.

      "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

      by QuickSilver on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:09:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it's mental retardation (4.00)
        Or perhaps the onset of idiotism, a condition that arises when your blood's IQ level drops below zero.  

        Pretty soon ol' Chimpy will really earn his nickname, when he starts speaking in grunts and scratching his armpits uncontrollably. We already see him sweating like a gorilla.

      •  Maybe an anti-epileptic drug? (none)
        From this article in Discover Magazine:

        [Wilder] Penfield, one of the giants of modern neuroscience, discovered that stimulating the brain's right temporal lobe--located just above the ear--with a mild electric current produced out-of-body experiences, heavenly music, vivid hallucinations, and the kind of panoramic memories associated with the life review part of the near-death experience. This helped explain why right temporal lobe epilepsy was a condition long defined by its most prominent symptom: excessive religiosity characterized by an intense feeling of spirituality, mystical visions, and auditory hallucinations of the voice-of-God variety.

        Maybe he does hear God talking to him. Seizures might explain why he falls off his bike so often, or why he "choked on a pretzel."

        "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government" - Teddy Roosevelt

        by mrboma on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:13:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The jaw thing was out of control (4.00)
      the other day during a cabinet meeting.  He was talking about the other SCOTUS opening and that all options are open, acknowleging that he was looking right at Alberto Gonzalez when he said it.

      His jaw was shifting left and right so much, I'm convinced he's suffering from either drug abuse, or some other degenerative condition, the likes of which you typically associate with people 30 years older.

      •  he could be taking a drug... (4.00)
        ...to combat his drinking, and that drug could result in jaw-thrusting side effects. (Again, see my comment on another thread.)

        "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

        by QuickSilver on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:16:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In need of an expert opinion (4.00)
        Could we please get Bill Frist to chime in on this? He is the only one in America with the capability of making video diagnoses.

        This comment posted by some anonymous staff person employed by bobinson

        by bobinson on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:39:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where's the video? Frist needs (none)
          video to diagnose......

          Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

          by caseynm on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:46:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here ya Go. (none)
            Hooray Daily Show!
            Click on "The Judge Report." It's near the end of the film. I count at least three thrusts...

            Wierd!

            Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -Douglas Adams

            by DelusionalLiberal on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:26:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I wasn't really asking for a link, (none)
              just pointing out that Frist diagnoses better by video...But thanks!!

              Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

              by caseynm on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:15:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  And how does that clip tell us (none)
              about Bush's drinking "again"? (I say "again" because I think the "pretzel" incident was proof of his drinking--dude was DRUNK and fell off the freaking couch!  pretzel my ass.)

              Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

              by caseynm on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:23:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  OOPS...My bad (none)
                forgot part of the discussion was the jaw thing....

                Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official... ~Theodore Roosevelt

                by caseynm on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 07:21:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Rube Goldberg (none)
                  1. Bush drinks... and drinks.
                  2. Bush refills glass, and rests on chest while watching "the game."
                  3. Bush's chin thrusts out, knocking over the glass.
                  4. Bush leans over to get the glass/suck up the beer.
                  5. Bush falls over!

                  That's my theory anyway... ties the thrustin' and the drinkin'

                  Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. -Douglas Adams

                  by DelusionalLiberal on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 08:29:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I watched the video of Hunter S. Thompson's (none)
          funeral, and in my expert opinion Gonzo's never looked so lucid, alert and aware.

          I am the federal government.

          by mateosf on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:20:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I heard it could be from (4.00)
      an anti-psychotic medication.  this from a PhD psychologist.

      "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

      by marjo on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:15:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever it is, (4.00)
        it's so pronounced and so new and so consistent that is indicative of a medical condition the PRESS CORPS should ask about.
        •  I've been asking doctors about it (4.00)
          Intrigued by Bush jaw-thrusting behaviors, I've been asking questions of doctors I know. Now take all of this with a grain of salt, since I'm not an MD myself...  

          First of all, what to call it? Bush's jaw-thrusting behavior might be termed an "extraparamital involuntary movement symptom."  Extraparamital movement disorders are usually a combination of movement problems, but you can have single presentations, of which jaw-thrusting is a very common one.  

          One doctor I know told me he saw 40 examples of these movements in one five-minute speech by Bush (I think it was the speech announcing Roberts for the Supreme Court, but I never saw that one myself and can't confirm). Bush's jaw-thrusting is outward and to one side, and sometimes it completely sends his jaw out, usually at the end of a sentence.  The jaw movements are CNS (Central Nervous System) mediated, and probably dopominergically related (i.e., related to dopamine levels). The movements are seen in individuals using or abusing drugs affecting the dopominergic system (neuroleptics, anti-psychotics, etc; neuroleptics are a kind of anti-psychotic).  

          Yes, it could be speed, as suggested in another thread. Indeed, the most dramatic and familiar presentation of these symptoms is when people are on Ecstasy (usually in the early crashing phase). But it could also be, and in one doctor's opinion is more likely to be, an indication Bush is using a prescription drug prescribed for individuals with primary mood regularity problems, a drug which Bush would be taking in addition to an antidepressant. Also, there are some newer drugs for substance abusers which often affect the dopaminergic system as well. (Bush's former abuse of drugs and alcohol almost certainly has not helped his current condition, though it can't necessarily be construed to have caused or to currently be causing it.)

          In short, no one knows what Bush is on, but he's on something, and something has changed in recent months. The docs may be tweaking his meds, trying to find the most effective cocktail. "I can't believe people aren't talking about it in the news," one doctor told me. (This guy is a well-regarded physician of referral with many years' experience in this area, so I trust him.)

          Anyway, for what it's worth...

          "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

          by QuickSilver on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:30:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Caffiene (none)
            causes it as well.
          •  Extrapyramidal (sp) (4.00)
            n/t

            Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a bill of goods!

            by barbwires on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:42:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Can't be speed-- (none)
            not with that early bedtime and all those naps...

            Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber--Plato

            by techiechick on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:42:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  spellcheck (none)
            I believe that's "extrapyramidal", not "extraparamital".
            •  You're right! (none)
              As I said, I'm not a doctor.  You're right: it should be "extrapyramidal", not "extraparamital."

              Otherwise, is anything else wrong with that assessment?  I really would like to know what's up with Bush these days, the jaw-thrusting is fascinating...

              "[I]n all due respect to your profession [journalism], you do a very good job of protecting the leakers." -- Bush on Oct 7, 2003

              by QuickSilver on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:47:50 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Was Hitler's Parkinson's Disease (none)
            in the last couple of years of his life pharmacologically induced (presumably by Dr. Morell's injections)?
            •  Stop with the Hitler refrences (4.00)
              As Bill Maher points out, Hitler was a decorated front line combat veteran who actually got more votes than his challenger in his first presidential election.

              This comment posted by some anonymous staff person employed by bobinson

              by bobinson on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:37:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe... (4.00)
              Hitler was taking coke and speed from about autumn 41 on, which corresponds to his increasingly erratic behavior and his micromanaging of the disastrous campaign in Russia. Some historians think Hitler's use of speed did as much to help the Allied cause as anything.
              Well, not really, but it certainly did affect his decision-making for the worse (for the 3rd Reich)...

              BTW, Bush and Hitler are not at all comparable. Hitler was a megalomaniacal control freak who often made very bold and decisive decisions which brought Germany to great victories, and eventual defeat. Not quite an evil genius, but almost.
              Bush is a spoiled, drunken, stupid, incompetent frat-boy puppet installed by the right-wing.
              However, the pre-war Nazi Party and the current incarnation of the GOP share many, many similarities. The use of hateful negative propaganda and "traditional family/religious values", the refusal to cooperate with "moderates", gerrymandering, corruption, cronyism, and beauracratic incompetence coupled with near-absolute power are all virtually identical.
              The neo-con vision of the world is strikingly similar to the Nazis: The all-powerful nation-state using unprovoked military force and torture to do "good" across the globe (with the Nazis it was fighting that great enemy of civilized Europe: 'Jewish Bolshevism'), snubbing the world crisis management apparatus (the League Of Nations),  etc, etc.

              Sorry if some of you think the Nazi comments are tiresome, but when the history of the 3rd Reich is studied these days (something I do as a sort of hobby) the parallels are frightening. Really.

              •  I think Nazi comparisons are awesome! (4.00)
                I do it all the time! If the Repugs don't like being compared to Nazis, they should stop acting like Nazis!

                Simple as that!

                America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

                by Tony Seybert on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:09:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  GOP=Nazi (4.00)
                  The rise of the Nazis during the 20's and the rise of the Neo-cons and Repub Rightwing during the 70s-80s have a number of very eerie similarities. They both used the same general techniques to gain power legally, and convinced a slight majority of their counyrymen to support them.

                  The Nazis eventually went too far militarily because of their geographic location in the center of Europe. This cost them "victory" in the end, but if they had been a bit more prudent, they could still be in power there today.
                  The GOP in the early 21st century USA doesn't need to invade neighbours because the US is largely isolated. Because the GOP-controlled US hasn't invaded every country next to it, the Nazi comparison seems far-fetched to most people. They assosiate the Nazis with conquering Europe and WWII only, and not their 15-year, pre-war domestic political rise.

                  But the unprovoked invasion of Iraq is in some ways similar to the reasons the Nazis used to occupy/invade Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. The Nazis claimed they were pre-empting an eventual threat to Germany, while at the same time (half-secretly) securing vital economic resources (mainly coal) which they called "lebensraum". The Neo-cons call it "democratization". The end result is the same: Military force used to achieve economic objectives.

                  •  BTW (none)
                    People who complain about comparing the GOP to the Nazis are in danger of repeating the mistakes of history.
                    They say; "Nobody could ever be as bad as the Nazis, so don't employ hyperbole and exaggeration or you will sound silly!"
                    That line of reasoning could dismiss otherwise obvious comparisons.
                    •  I like the way the conservatives (none)
                      blame the loss of Vietnam on the protesters the same way the Nazis blamed the loss of World War I on the Jews and other November criminals.

                      (Both accusations fail to take the FACTS into account.)

                      Find scapegoats, intimidate dissenters, exploit all hyper-active patriotic sentiments.

                      It's so easy to see current Repug talking points in a 1940s German version of Fox News:

                      "The Russians desperate defense of Stalingrad proves we're winning!"

                      "Why are you liberals so upset about the camps? They're only Jews and they are enemies of the state. And they aren't treated that bad. They get two kinds of fruit and Noodles Jefferson!"

                      "It doesn't matter what Hitler does, The Angry Left will never give him a break!"

                      America: It's a good IDEA for a country ...

                      by Tony Seybert on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 08:04:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

          •  We need a blood sample (none)
            The next time he goes bike riding, someone needs to come by later and collect enough fluid to run tests.
      •  Tardive dyskinesia (4.00)
        Loss of muscular control that is often a side effect of anti-psychotic medication

        "Never give up, never surrender"

        by wonkydonkey on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:23:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'll put my money (none)
        on that diagnosis.

        You can't shake hands with a clenched fist. ~Ghandi

        by JaciCee on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:21:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't know about you but (4.00)
      if I had the Stepford wife shouting at me and threatening to accompany me all the time, I would not so much fall off the wagon as leap off it.
    •  Please... (4.00)
      let's not turn into freerepublic or the DU here.  A National Enquirer story!!??  Come on.  Cocaine use?  "Texas size shots of whiskey"?  Can't we just all agree that Bush is a disengaged idiot without speculating about snorting lines, which just makes everyone here look like tinfoil hat wearing wingnuts?  I've seen tons of threads lately with armchair psychiatry.  Mostly it's utter rubbish and makes this whole site look like a bunch of crackpots.  Isn't there enough shit out there to bitch about that is real and proven.  Seriously, enough with the drinking, cocaine, anti-psychotic drug innuendo that's been rampant lately.  That's the kind of talk that pissed me off so much about the right while Clinton was in office.  It's really no better.  

      Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

      by MatthewBrown on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:12:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's a joke dude (none)
        Get over it.  I don't really think Bush is snorting coke and drinking J.B. But it sure is funny to picture it!
      •  libel (none)
        The National Enquirer can be and has been sued for libel. They are very careful when reporting such things. Take that as you will.

        etrans.blogspot.com

        Tracking energy and transportation news.

        by joel3000 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:29:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Just like (none)
          Jerry Falwell's series of videos alleging Clinton had ordered the deaths of dozens of people must be true because he wasn't sued for libel, right?

          --- My opinions are my own and not my employer's.

          by Aexia on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:12:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  read further down the thread (none)
            The Falwell case was totally different, Clinton would have been a sucker to take Falwell to court because it would have dignified the accusations and made it much more newsworthy. But that is beside the point.

            I'm not going to address the veracity of the NE here because it has been well done downthread.

            etrans.blogspot.com

            Tracking energy and transportation news.

            by joel3000 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:38:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Whether you believe it or not... (4.00)
        ...the Enquirer has survived as long as it has because just about all of the awful stuff they print is true.

        I happen to be the son of a man who has ended up in the Enquirer on more than one occasion. One time, I found out about what he'd done FROM the Enquirer before anyone in my family knew about it. That was rough.

        But I can say with out even cracking a smile that the Enquirer uses the same basic principles for sourcing that every mainstream paper uses - most often an unnamed source with a backup confirmation from someone else.

        Their sources might be a little grubby and they do intentionally go looking for dirt on people, but I would say that pretty much everything they print can be backed up in court - which is precisely why they so rarely find themselves there.

        Sorry, but I've had some painful personal experience with them!

        •  And what difference does it make (none)
          if Dubya is drinking? (am I the only one that caught that the whole tone of this article was that of a joke).  I know, I know if somehow this were true it would make him a hypocrite.  Who cares? It's a personal issue.  This whole thread is petty and ridiclous.  

          Arrogance and stupidity: it's a winning combination.

          by MatthewBrown on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 05:18:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  OK I kind of mind (none)
        the DU insult. I started reading there when the election discrepancies were downplayed here.

        The basic issues are not that different. Wilder theories are deleted or moved to a "special place" there too. They are much closer to the tone of this place then they are to freerepublic.

        And I had to speak up because I don't think we need that kind of division.

    •  Well, he does have access (none)
      to "Diplomatic Pouches" from Bogota.
    •  We actually had a name for that in college (none)
      We called it "dogjaw," and it was definitely a symptom of Coke use.
  •  If an alcoholic is unwilling to get help (4.00)
    If an alcoholic is unwilling to get help, what can you do about it?

    This can be a challenge. An alcoholic can't be forced to get help except under certain circumstances, such as a violent incident that results in court-ordered treatment or medical emergency. But you don't have to wait for someone to "hit rock bottom" to act. Many alcoholism treatment specialists suggest the following steps to help an alcoholic get treatment.

    Stop all "cover ups":

    Family members often make excuses to others or try to protect the alcoholic from the results of his or her drinking. It is important to stop covering for the alcoholic so that he or she experiences the full consequences of drinking.

    Time your intervention:

    The best time to talk to the drinker is shortly after an alcohol-related problem has occurred--like a serious family argument or an accident. Choose a time when he or she is sober, both of you are fairly calm, and you have a chance to talk in private.

    Be specific:

    Tell the family member that you are worried about his or her drinking. Use examples of the ways in which the drinking has caused problems, including the most recent incident.

    State the results:

    Explain to the drinker what you will do if he or she doesn't go for help--not to punish the drinker, but to protect yourself from his or her problems. What you say may range from refusing to go with the person to any social activity where alcohol will be served, to moving out of the house. Do not make any threats you are not prepared to carry out.

    Get help:

    Gather information in advance about treatment options in your community. If the person is willing to get help, call immediately for an appointment with a treatment counselor. Offer to go with the family member o­n the first visit to a treatment program and/or an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting.

    Call o­n a friend:

    If the family member still refuses to get help, ask a friend to talk with him or her using the steps just described. A friend who is a recovering alcoholic may be particularly persuasive, but any person who is caring and nonjudgmental may help. The intervention of more than o­ne person, more than o­ne time, is often necessary to coax an alcoholic to seek help.

    Find strength in numbers:

    With the help of a health care professional, some families join with other relatives and friends to confront an alcoholic as a group. This approach should o­nly be tried under the guidance of a health care professional who is experienced in this kind of group intervention.

    Get support:

    It is important to remember that you are not alone. Consider meeting with a local therapist specializing in alcoholism issues for insight and help. Support groups offered in most communities include Al-Anon, which holds regular meetings for spouses and other significant adults in an alcoholic's life, and Alateen, which is geared to children of alcoholics. These groups help family members understand that they are not responsible for an alcoholic's drinking and that they need to take steps to take care of themselves, regardless of whether the alcoholic family member chooses to get help.

    Do you have to be an alcoholic to experience problems?

    No. Alcoholism is o­nly o­ne type of an alcohol problem. Alcohol abuse can be just as harmful. A person can abuse alcohol without actually being an alcoholic--that is, he or she may drink too much and too often but still not be dependent o­n alcohol. Some of the problems linked to alcohol abuse include not being able to meet work, school, or family responsibilities; drunk-driving arrests and car crashes; and drinking-related medical conditions. Under some circumstances, even social or moderate drinking is dangerous--for example, when driving, during pregnancy, or when taking certain medications.

    linked text

    This race is about restoring trust...that the things we talk about in a campaign are not promises to be broken, they are promises to be kept. - John Kerry 2004

    by etherapy on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:02:45 PM PDT

  •  is it really too much to ask (none)
    for approximately proper grammar to be used?
  •  The significance (4.00)
    The significance is not that it might be true.  The significance is that the National Enquirer, not known for its liberal viewpoints, is beginning to "Clintonize" Bush.

    The revolution starts now--in your own back yard, in your own home town

    by TarheelDem on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:03:36 PM PDT

    •  Absolutely! (4.00)
      I've been reluctant to stick a fork in him; the venality of the people who've stuck by him thus far amazes me to a degree that I've just had to suspend any predictions. But if even these dirtballs are turning on him, he's done. Contest every seat in 2006.
      •  We can contest (none)
        but until we get some dem leaders willing to go to the mat to take back our government on all levels, we will lose.  That is why they are still so confident.  Rove feels he can outslime, out spend, and our diebold any candidate we have.  2006 should tell us whether the dems have their act together are not.  I am NOT holding my breath.
    •  Yep... (4.00)
      You saw this with the fact that Reuters was willing to release the photo of W's "potty break" note to Condi. After 9/11, the press decided they couldn't/wouldn't touch the guy, and played along with the administration's heroic image making. But the levees have broken and those days are over now.
      •  Good point (none)
        And since the press has been so easy on Bush, we have no idea how he'll stand up under critical scrutiny. (Not well, I'd wager, but I doubt anyone would take that bet.)
      •  Mean old levee, (4.00)
        Taught Bush to weep and moan.
        Said mean old levee,
        taught Bush to weep and moan.
        Got what it takes
        To make Dubya leave his home.

        Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
        Now, cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good,
        When the levee breaks, Dubya, you got to move.

        I am the federal government.

        by mateosf on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:11:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes (none)
      It's about time these barometers of populist sentiment began to do their REAL job---registering the actual substance of our collective perceptions and imaginations---rather than pushing one one produced by the GOP propaganda factory.  

      They are finally losing the PR battle and the karmic payback for all the bullying and smearing and lying is a bitch.  

      And for regime based completely on PR, this IS total destruction.

      The US population will not be able to stand 3 more years of the naked chimperor.  I think even people who supported him rather vigorously will find impeachment/resignation more and more attractive as time goes by.

      "How can it be that we elected a 10-year-old President and 4 years later he is STILL 10 years old??!!"

      by Fatherflot on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:21:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clintonization (4.00)
      Now, if we can only get Congress to Kenstarr and feather him!

      80W-71S
      The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

      by Eddie Haskell on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:42:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Charlie Rose... (4.00)
      ...once had Rupert Murdoch and other tabloid big wigs on his show.  I was impressed that one thing they all (Charlie included) agreed on was that (I guess since the Mary Tyler Moore suit) there is truth to everything the Enquirer reports on.

      I remember this every time I'm on the checkout line.

      No, I don't buy it.  But I smile inwardly sometimes.

      •  I spoke to many in the Enquirer world (4.00)
        while producing a documentary on the tabloids.  You'd be surprised at some of the relentless reporting done by the Enquirer hacks.  They get people to spill things because they have resources the MSM doesn't - THEY PAY FOR INFO!  Sometimes a lot.  

        They also force those same sources to sign a million disclosures and indemnifications in case of lawsuits.  So they are more accurate (in many cases) than you might think.

        "The responsibility of government for the public safety is absolute and requires no mandate." -Winston Churchill

        by hopesprings on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:34:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The odd thing about the Enquirer (none)
          Having perused a few copies myself over the years. ;-)

          The headlines and pictures on the front page are generally far more interesting than the articles themselves.

          It's like "SHOCKING NEW EVIDENCE THAT UFOS MIGHT BE REAL!" on the front page, with a doctored up photo.  Then you get to page 39, and they basically have an article saying that someone saw something, but wasn't quite sure what it was.

          I still don't trust 'em, but they play an interesting game between fact and fiction.

    •  Reminds me of an ad slogan (none)
      But I'll change the wording a bit:
      "One-hour Clintonizing!"

      War is not an adventure. It is a disease. It is like typhus. - Antoine De Saint-Exupery

      by Margot on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 11:44:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thank god someone around here (none)
      is smart.

      Excellent call.

      Tho it's that strength in numbers thing -- different people simply intuit the truth about different things.

      In troubling times, it's good to read true stories about real people doing good things. HeroicStories, free

      by AllisonInSeattle on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:07:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Well Thank God (4.00)
    it was picked up by his supporters' favorite publication--I would hate for them to miss it...:)

    Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber--Plato

    by techiechick on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:03:56 PM PDT

  •  I don't allow much credibility (4.00)
    for National Enquirer stories.

    Fortunately, a wide spectrum of the American Public does.

    I hope that they have a telephone that they answer when the polsters call.

    Katrina Changed Everything - A New Era Demands New Policies

    by ROGNM on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:05:05 PM PDT

    •  Pretty accurate. (4.00)
      More accurate than people think.

      Despite the sensationalistic perception, the Enquirer is also well-regarded for its very thorough research; their stories are often proven correct in many of their facts. The stories the Enquirer publishes about celebrities carry the risk that the celebrity will sue them for libel. In 1981, Carol Burnett won a libel judgement against the Enquirer for falsely claiming that she had been seen drunk in public, purportedly with Henry Kissinger; the fact that both of her parents suffered from alcoholism made this a particularly sensitive issue to Ms. Burnett. (In order to defend against libel, an article needs to have a substantial basis in fact.) This loss led to a considerable tightening of reporting standards with regard to stories about actual people and events. Subsequent celebrity stories broken in the Enquirer have generally been proven true; for example, it was the Enquirer that uncovered in 2001 that the Rev. Jesse Jackson had an illegitimate child.
    •  extremely accurate (4.00)
      I believe every bit of gossip they print.  I used to  go out with a gossip hound, and it was amazing how often they broke stories before the other trash rags (US, People, etc), and how  they almost never have a retraction.  In addition, there is a long line of celebrities who've sued or threatened to sue who didn't get a penny.

      "I have no clue" - Bill O'Reilly quoted completely out of context. Hey fair's fair right?

      by chicagochamp on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:23:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They've got a lot (none)
        of wiggle room here because Bush is a public official. It would be harder to prove libel.

        What are you trying to hide?

        by Caneel on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:34:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (none)
          But I don't see any upside for them to just make shit up here.  Their reader base is rather Republican (take a look at the ads and the tone of any story about Jane Fonda).  Doesn't make sense to me for them to print bullshit about this.

          "I have no clue" - Bill O'Reilly quoted completely out of context. Hey fair's fair right?

          by chicagochamp on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:38:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Who's the editor? (4.00)
            This could be a planted story to garner simpathy with the "common man."

            It seemed a little fishy that they emphasized that it's his excess of compassion (re: Iraq casualties, etc.) that drove him over the edge.  I find that highly unlikely considered his generally sociopathic behavior to this point.

            Well girls, it's 1950 all over again-don your aprons and prepare to be put in your place.

            by jandey on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:07:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sympathy sells, (none)
              sociopathy doesn't.

              Most people can relate to pain and pressure driving one back to the booze; few people can understand, let alone identify with, sociopathy.

              "America has left the building." --Jeff Wells

              by Hastur on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:22:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It shows he has sympathy! (none)
                Exactly. The impression was that he didn't care. This shows he cared more about this than anything that has happened in the last five years. By playing this up, we unwittingly foster the false notion that Bush has what is commonly known as sympathy, something that was surgically removed in a clandestine operation while he was AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard.
            •  exactly my thought (none)
              planted by Rove to garner sympathy. It's all he's got left.
            •  That was my first impression (none)
              Sounds like a cover story -- although if Rove planted this, the truth is right there in front of us.

              Rove typically plants the truth, but in such a way that it backfires on the user (ex. Rather and CBS) or can't be proven without taking down the accuser.

              So...Bush is drinking again.  What a surprise.

              On the other hand, it's possible this is a plant by another group and it's only Phase I of a multipart series.  I suspect we've seen a lot of leaks recently because of a group effort, stuff we wouldn't have seen without assistance and active intervention (emails and internal memos documenting actions by DHS/FEMA and Bush, for example).  The National Enquirer story is a bit different in its approach, but we may see internal documents supporting this any time now.

              Pass the popcorn.

            •  My BS detector was ringing (none)
              That was the weak part of the story...  George was distraught over someone else's suffering?  I doubt it.  He doesn't care if you live or die, he doesn't care if the country goes up in a ball of fire tomorrow.  He doesn't care about anything but himself and his cronies.  And they better not tell him what he doesn't want to hear, because as long as he is President, he is calling the shots.  Once he is just a private citizen again, he's going to have some big time attitude adjustments.
      •  the bushies didn't sue kitty kelly either (none)
        and she reported he took cocaine at camp david during his father's administration.
    •  Steve Gillard's thoughts (4.00)
      On the reliability of the national enquirer (he also linked to the story):


      Let me say this before people start in: the National Enquirer has beaten more libel suits than most major newspapers. Their stuff is vetted by libel lawyers before it hits the stands. In fact, their accuracy is no worse than their MSM peers. Up until the 1970's, they ran alien stories, but then switched to celebrity coverage.

      Why do I trust the NE? They pay their sources. So someone close to the WH got a big fat check for this, over $10K. And if they deny this or lie, the NE has a file on them. When dealing with gossip, this is quite effective. Now they may wind up paying the wrong people, but this is what they were told. Come on, if you ran the NE, would you risk a libel suit with your reputation?

      Also, first Capital Hill Blue, now the NE, slowly, but surely, this is going to reach the MSM. Gossip is sually tomorrow's news today.

      Resistance is NOT futile.

      by Dperl99 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:44:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You'd be Surprised (4.00)
    You'd be surprised how often the National Enquirer is right.

    "We must all hang together or assuredly we will all hang seperately." - Ben Franklin

    by RandyMI on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:05:14 PM PDT

  •  Bush Not A 12 Stepper (4.00)
    Bush is not a 12 stepper.  He's a dry drunk who very possibly may have returned to drinking.  The 12 step program is very big on acknowledging mistakes and making amends - 2 things you do not see see Bush doing.    
    •  that's right... (4.00)
      he NEVER went to A.A.  He thought accepting Jesus was enough.  Little did he know that Jesus wanted him to use his GOD-GIVEN abilities to actively participate in his recovery.

      Be a patriot...Buy a hybrid vehicle!

      by billlaurelMD on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:25:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can hear him now... (none)
        "No, Laura, it's not my fault! I was just talkin' to Jesus as I was gettin' a drink from the kitchen faucet and he went and turned my water into wine!"

        "Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

        by Donna in Rome on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:47:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yep. (none)
      The farthest thing from a "strict set of rules." Now that fundy business, that's another story. Break the rules, go to Hell.

      Down, by God, but not out.

      by perro amarillo on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:26:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  thank you (4.00)
      for pointing out that Bush's supposed sobriety and characteristics have absolutely no relation to the 12 Steps of AA or any other recovery group I'm familiar with.

      Rimjob should clarify this - to analyze his behavior in light of the 12 Steps is to truly damn them.

      The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.

      by tangoasg on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:05:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This gives (none)
      Kerry's bizarre (IMO) quote in his Brown U. speech a lot more resonance:

      I know the President went on national television last week and accepted responsibility for Washington's poor response to Katrina. That's admirable. And it's a first. As they say, the first step towards recovery is to get out of denial. But don't hold your breath hoping acceptance of responsibility will become a habit for this administration.

      I noticed that the moment I read it, and thought it really out of place to be poking fun at an alcoholic in that way.  But maybe he knows something.

      Also, about the Enquirer: they're owned by the same group that signed the big deal with Schwarzenegger for editing their muscle mags.  That's notable.

      "I don't like our government using official state secrets as opposition research." -me

      by dday on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 10:22:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  meh (4.00)
    Laura Bush gonna go straight to Xanax overdose before she opens her mouth like that.
  •  I know a PhD in psychology who says (none)
    that his "puffier" appearance might indicate drinking again.

    "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

    by marjo on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:13:32 PM PDT

  •  The real question is... (none)
    ...did he ever truly stop?  I remember seeing footage of Bush at a wedding recital after he claimed to have "found Jesus".

    Either he was absolutely LIT at the wedding, or he's much more unstable than most could ever realize.

    •  First Hand Story (4.00)
      My good friend is a reporter for the mid-sized midwestern city where I live.  He told me about an incident that happened when Bush campaigned here in 2000:  my friend was hanging around the lobby of the Holiday Inn where Bush and Laura were staying and he heard an aid ask the desk clerk where he could find a liquor store.  He explained that "Laura would like a glass of wine to help her relax."  When the aid saw my friend and realized he was within earshot (and that he was a local reporter), he walked right up to him, put his finger to his lips and said "not a word, understand?"  My friend perceived this as a threat and never wrote the story (which would never have been run in the right-wing paper he wrote for anyway).

      "How can it be that we elected a 10-year-old President and 4 years later he is STILL 10 years old??!!"

      by Fatherflot on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:30:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's The Question I've Always Asked (none)
      I think he probably drinks a lot less than he used to, but since he was apparently a "drunk all day every day" boozer, that still leaves a lot of room for significant alcohol abuse on Dim Son's part.

      "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

      "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

      by JJB on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:39:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  For those who haven't seen it ... (none)
      Here's a link to the clip, which was shot several years after Bush "gave up" drinking.

      The funny thing is, even though he seems clearly schnockered, Bush comes across much more intelligent and charming than he is capable of appearing any more. I really have to wonder about what could have caused such obvious mental degeneration.

      And what is the deal with the box he has to wear on his back? It was visible in that picture of him slumped and sweaty while boarding the plane after his NO speech. I've heard that there's a medical explanation for the box. Does anyone know what that could be?

      •  Is that the box people saw in the debates? (none)
        •  That's the box ! (none)
          And if you take a look at the picture of Bush boarding the plane, there it is again. And it doesn't seem like Bush wouldn't need a radio transmitting device, which is what people speculated it was when it was spotted during the debates, to read from a teleprompter while giving a speech. I heard that it may be a medical device, but I was wondering if anyone had more details on this theory.
        •  Explanation for the box (none)
          *dons tin foil hat* It's a receiving device for information that is sent from the future. When we figure out time travel, we're suddenly shocked to find that there's no way to send people back.. but information, on a quantum level? Entirely possible. The scientist responsible for the discovery of the method has since been murdered, and his technology is in use to talk to future leaders, to find out how history unfolds. Seems like they're having one hell of a good time tricking Dubya into thinking they're serious. *removes hat, bows*
      •  Hmmm... (none)
        Never seen that clip before, but he doesn't seem drunk to me in it.

        But you're right - he was clearly very different to how he is now in terms of general all round talking ability.

        •  Other clips (none)
          from 1994 and 1978 show a very silvertongued fellow.

          My theory for his "degeneration," aside from his family's unquestionable degeneracy, is that he's in over his head and scared shitless.  That would hobble the tongue.

          "A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both." --President Eisenhower

          by rhubarb on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:08:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  perhaps (none)
            perhaps old age is setting in early. critial thinking goes at some point. i think its going for him. there has been a MAJOR change in his behavior just since 2001. my guess and its just that is that it is a combo of pills and stress. he is probably on  perscription meds and that is what is causing the degeneration

            life is not a dress rehearsal

            by johnfire on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:19:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Here's an interesting article on the box (none)
        I can't vouch for authenticity or anything like that, but here you go: http://atlanta.indymedia.org/newswire/display/35360/index.php
  •  Thanks for linking the Enquirer story . . . (4.00)
    Only way I'd have read it. Now, I believe I will be seen conspicuously reading it in the best suburban grocery lines.

    Way down at the bottom, the story actually quotes Justin Frank, author of the book Bush On The Couch:

    Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

    "I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."

    Makes them look a little like journos, compared to the RWCM!

    Talk doesn't cook rice -- Chinese Proverb

    by OldYellerDog on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:17:02 PM PDT

  •  Mebbe (4.00)
    Mebbe he'll get drunk and accidentally nominate Lawrence Tribe to the SCOTUS.

    Oh when the frogs. . Come marching in. . Oh when the FROGS COME MARCH-ING IN!

    by pontificator on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:17:02 PM PDT

  •  Bush Booze (none)
    How the heck would they know what goes on in Crawford.  I don't beleive it.
    •  The same way they get (4.00)
      All their stories.

      Find someone who will accept a large ammount of cash to spil their guts.

      This is also how intellgence agencies work, by the way.

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:22:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Didn't I hear somewhere (4.00)
        that the National Enquirer scanned towards the conservative side?

        "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

        by kredwyn on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:36:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I saw someone (none)
          Metion that on this diary. I don't know how true it is about their readers, but I do know the National Enquirer is one of the players in Schwarzenegger's supplement scandle.

          They're normally friends of the GOP, which means that what's drivening them here is that they think they have something, and they think it's too good to pass up.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 06:46:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wasn't it the National Enquirer (4.00)
    that broke the Tush Limbaugh drug abuse story?
  •  If it's true, the bad news is that ... (none)
    ...it will probably BOOST his poll ratings because people will feel sympathy for him.

    Thirty-one million new blogs are created each year. Try ours at The Next Hurrah.

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:22:53 PM PDT

    •  That was EXACTLY (none)
      what I was thinking while reading this.  The poor God-loving president was pushed back to drinking by either the liberal media or the Democrats or fill-in-the-blank reason.  
      •  Me too (none)
        I read the story on Steve Gilliard's blog, leaned over to my spouse and said that this would probably up his poll numbers.

        Think about it. Poor W. was sooooo upset over the suffering of his peeps that it drove him to drink! My god, he is so HUMAN!

        I would love to be so wrong about this. We shall see.

        "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it's the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

        by RevDeb on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:59:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  They'll try to spin it that way (none)
      if they find it necessary, but it won't get them anywhere. Bush has to start looking presidential not vulnerable if he wants his numbers to go back up. Good luck, Georgie.
  •  I'd believe it (none)
    if I actually thought Bush cared about anyone but himself. I don't think he cares enough about NOLA to start downing shots over it. Besides, the levee broke in the middle of the night -- were George & Laura up at 4 am, or did George take a swig first thing with breakfast? The staging of this story doesn't sound too plausible.
    •  yes you have a point (none)
      I'd have to agree with that. But, I wouldn't be surprised if he were drinking. Possibly just the stress of being so far in over his little head. (Breakfast is not out of the question.)

      "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

      by OLinda on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:41:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True (none)
        I realized after posting that drinking at breakfast was not that incredible for an (ex-) alcoholic. I wouldn't be surprised if he were drinking either. I just didn't find this particular story very convincing... although who knows.
    •  Doesn't care about the people of N.O. (none)
      but sure cares about his image. People have been saying mean things about him!! People have been expecting things from him!! Waaahhh!!!

      Sure, I'd believe that Katrina set him drinking again --- if I didn't believe that he was drinking again looooooong before she hit.

      "America has left the building." --Jeff Wells

      by Hastur on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:15:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bush is indecisive and a control freak (none)
      A force of nature like Katrina slamming into a city as important and as vulnerable as New Orleans is nightmare #1 for him. Its sheer size and its inevitability overwhelm his careful central control of everything, and swamp his message discipline.

      If this episode occurred when the hurricane hit, he'd already sat through the same briefing that scared the bejeezus out of Mayor Nagin. He could see the inevitable refocusing of the nation's attention away from the Commander in Chief of the War on Terror, and toward a giant, costly, domestic project that would compete with his precious war on all fronts for an extended period of time, just as his precious war is starting to implode under him.

      I don't have to imagine that he has a compassionate bone in his body to imagine him downing a few shots in Katrina's wake.

    •  I don't think it's because (none)
      he gives a shit about NOLA. It's because things aren't going his way at all right now and NOLA punctured a big hole in his balloon. He knows other people care about it in a big way and he's not used to getting so much bad press.
    •  The Levees (none)
      ... (actually floodwalls) broke early Monday 29 August -- at least the Industrial Canal and 17th Street Canal floodwalls, which were the primary culprits in flooding the city, did.

      Protection, Privacy, Peace and Prosperity: Vote Democrat

      by Irfo on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:58:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Timeline on the levees (none)
        Wow, I had no idea the levees broke in the middle of the day. I was out of the country for three weeks and when I got back I went looking through Kos diaries -- it looked like most people only realized it had happened overnight (or perhaps I was reading the dates wrong). Anyway, I've found the timeline now which clears things up immensely.

        Incidentally, everyone I talked to in Europe was quite puzzled over how bad the emergency response was. The British were also furious with Blair's poor handling of it -- he actually apologized (something Bush never did).

        •  There's A Reason You Didn't Know (none)
          A disinformation campaign was waged, to put it I believe only slightly too strongly.  I wrote a diary about it on Thursday 1 September.  

          The day before, the New York Times, in the first sentence of its lead page A1 article said "A day after New Orleans thought it had narrowly escaped the worst of Hurricane Katrina's wrath, water broke through two levees on Tuesday and virtually submerged and isolated the city, causing incalculable destruction and rendering it uninhabitable for weeks to come."  I knew that was simply false -- disgraceful, really, for a once-great newspaper.

          jennifer poole in the comments found a more definitive link than any I'd found.

          Since then (somebody must have much later referenced that diary), people have dropped in extensively researched evidence that the overtoppings/breaches may have begun even before Katrina really hit.

          Protection, Privacy, Peace and Prosperity: Vote Democrat

          by Irfo on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:57:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The levee's broke Monday! (none)
      By 10:00 CST CNN had a nurse that mentioned the levee brake. I hope and pray the President would have such information before CNN had it. If he did then that could easily put it on Monday evening when a dry drunk would want a drink after hearing that one of the worst imaginable disasters had come to pass.

      I get all my data via the "Limbaugh method", I pull it out my ass.

      by Tomtech on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:18:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bush was told at 5 am Pacific Coast Time (none)
        I had no idea that the levees had been breached in the middle of the day, as you and Irfo (above) pointed out. I found a reference that says that Bush was only informed of this at 5 am Tuesday:

        By the predawn hours, most state and federal officials finally realized that the 17th Street Canal levee had been breached, and that the city was in serious trouble. Bush was told at 5 a.m. Pacific Coast time and immediately decided to cut his vacation short.

        Pretty pathetic, isn't it?

        •  Great government we have! (none)
          they told hin 26 hours after the fact. The Louisianna National Guard base was flooded when the Industrial Canal Levee was breached at 3:00 AM Monday morning. They did get the word out when they got a helocopter airlift to the Superdome Monday afternoon.

          I get all my data via the "Limbaugh method", I pull it out my ass.

          by Tomtech on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 10:55:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Yep (4.00)
    The Enquirer isn't the Weekly World News. They really do have a reputation for accuracy, and freelancers I know who've written for them say their stuff is mercilessly fact-checked.

    The NE also has the highest circulation of any newspaper in America. Meheheheheh.

    •  Wait a minute. (none)
      Are you saying that Bat Boy isn't inolved in the hunt for OBL? And he isn't James Carville's kin?
    •  Mercilessly fact-check? (none)
      Surely you exaggerate.
      •  libel (none)
        No publication in America is a bigger target for potential libel suits.

        As I noted upthread, read the New York Review of Magazines article.

        "I have no clue" - Bill O'Reilly quoted completely out of context. Hey fair's fair right?

        by chicagochamp on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:43:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. It's quite true ... (none)
        ...and they've always been this way.

        The key to their success is always to quote some "expert" or somebody who says what they can then hype in the headline.

        Take one of those stories that Mike S visits: Carville related to "Batboy."

        That's the astonishing assertion of a Chicago scientist who has just completed the most extensive DNA tests ever conducted on the bat-like mutant.

        The Enquirer isn't saying it, a "scientist" is. Pretty slick.

        Thirty-one million new blogs are created each year. Try ours at The Next Hurrah.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:06:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What? (none)
          You're saying Carville isn't related to batboy? Am I to assume, then, that I've been wrong all this time about Mary Matalin's DNA connection to Lizzy Borden??

          Hostage smiles on presidents, freedom scribbled in the subway. It's like night and day. - Joni Mitchell

          by jazzlover on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:04:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nope (none)
            Carville is the batboy.

            That's what finally made Novakula snap, Carville/Batboy told him "I'm taking over your cave, you old bat"

            Every [weapon] signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. - Dwight D. Eisenhower

            by racerx on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:28:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Correction (none)
          The Enquirer isn't saying it, a "scientist" is. Pretty slick.

          Bat Boy is covered by Weekly World News who is also running a very interesting article that makes a whole lot of sense when you take Armando into account.

          SCIENTISTS REVEAL LAWYERS & LEECHES HAVE IDENTICAL GENETIC MAKEUP!

          By MARK MILLER

          INNSBRUCK, Austria -- It's been suspected for centuries, but a team of world-renowned scientists has finally confirmed it: Lawyers and leeches have identical genetic makeup.

          Dr. Andreas Volkenweiler of Austria's famed Innsbruck Institute of Genetic Research confirms that, "While studying the DNA sequences of many genes that control body patterns in various occupations, our research team observed that each lawyer gene contains a stretch of 180 nucleotides -- or structural components of DNA -- which exactly match the structure of those found in leeches.

          "Once we made that basic match, other similarities between the two species were fairly easy to observe." Those similarities include the facts that both lawyers and leeches are:

              * Famed for their blood-sucking abilities.
              * Have large round mouths functioning as suckers to hold on to their hosts.
              * Have fine, conical teeth.
              * Are recognized for being the lowest, sleaziest and slimiest of their species.
              * Thrive in the bottom-mud and ooze of existence.
              * Partial to consuming the blood of fish, frogs and turtles.
              * Equally popular in social situations.
              * The American Bar Association is proceeding with a defamation of character lawsuit, but Dr. Volkenweiler is not worried. "We haven't stated anything that's not a documented fact," he says.

          Published on: 09/20/2005

        •  You're confusing publications (none)
          The Enquirer isn't saying it, a "scientist" is. Pretty slick.

          The quote you are commenting on is from Weekly World News not the National Enquirer.

          I'm not a fan of National Enquirer but they really are in a different category than the tabloids that do stories about aliens and bigfoot and everyone's favorite mutant... Batboy.

  •  My, my, my (none)
    I thought it was just a fluke little article -- but I went to the National Enquirer site and --

    the wheels are coming off Bushco if even the National enquirer is ranking on Bush like this.

    We'll know that Bushco has crashed however when Drudgereport starts really ranking on Bush.

    Let us hope it'll be soon.

    Proud to be a Bleeding Heart Liberal

    by sara seattle on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:28:14 PM PDT

    •  drudge (4.00)
      Earlier, someone posted the Enquirer article on the open thread. I sent the link and info to Drudge, haha. I love to harass him. I am sure he will put a big headline on it.

      "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

      by OLinda on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:38:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  or stroke or atrial fibrillation, or.... ? (none)
    Related to the lump under his suitcoat?

    Doctors have lots to speculate about.

    80W-71S
    The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

    by Eddie Haskell on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:33:50 PM PDT

  •  a long vacation in Crawford (none)
    might be the ideal time to adjust one's psycho-pharmaceuticals, as they may not kick in immediately.  just sayin'

    "Every act of becoming conscious is an unnatural act." - Adrienne Rich

    by marjo on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:35:54 PM PDT

  •  Stop George! (4.00)
    The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop George!"
    Welcome to the Daily Kos, Laura.  We've been shouting that here for years!

    80W-71S
    The most un-American thing you can say is, "You can't say that." -G. Keillor

    by Eddie Haskell on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:44:59 PM PDT

  •  intervention (3.66)
    I think we should do an intervention. Take him to an undisclosed location and "help" him.

    "Why are we falling all over ourselves congratulating the President for taking responsibility for something that was his responsibility? I don't get it." - Imus

    by OLinda on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:52:34 PM PDT

  •  Somebody's leaking (none)
    My guess is that Bush has been drinking for quite a while.  Maybe it's becoming more common knowledge among aides, etc.  Remember that no one wanted to tell him he was going to have to cut his vacation short because of Katrina?  

    Is someone leaking this, putting a sympathetic spin on it, i.e. the levees made him do it, because he's so out of control that they want to put it out there first?

    Or this could be another James Hatfield situation.  He's drinking, but they leak to someone who can be swiftboated down the road so that the leaker looks unreliable.  

  •  Did I come to the wrong site? (none)
    My God, I can't believe this is on the recommended list.  What is happening here?

    Who cares if he is drinking.  People drink.  Are we going to drum Ted Kennedy out of office?  And if he truly is a relapsed alcoholic, that's more of a tragedy than something to gloat over.

    I am embarassed by this diary.  Maybe the problem is with me, as I haven't seen a single comment expressing these same thoughts, but I don't think so.

    •  Sorry If I Offended You... (none)
      ...but I thought it was interesting in an admittedly "gossip" kind of way, and Wonkette thought so too.

      I wasn't gloating about it or laughing at him, I very explicitly asked if their is some comparison between the psychology of a recovering addict & the way he views policy.

    •  Ordinarilly I would totally understand and I do (4.00)
      respect yout viewpoint...especially being in Recovery...but when one is dealing with a Holier-than-thou President who talks to God, espouses "moral values", loves to tell how he did not need AA, how God helped him through his alcoholism (which is simply an advertisment for his "Faith-based, anti-gay, anti-choice" agenda)...I can make an exception.

      "Democrats win when people think"...Bill Clinton

      by Limabean on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:18:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Ted Kennedy (4.00)
      A). Is not the president
      B). Got help for his problem
      C). Does not deny the existence of his problem
      D). Did not just help kill a city, possibly as a result (direct or indirect) of his problem.

      "Is he drinking again?" is certainly a valid, legitimate question to ask, and has been debated on the internet (Google "George Bush drinking OR 'dry drunk'" for a few thousand relevant hits) for ages. Not to mention on this very site.

      "America has left the building." --Jeff Wells

      by Hastur on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:22:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A) (none)
        Is the most important point on that list. NOLA not withstanding, the idea of an alcoholic with the authority to launch nuclear weapons scares the Hell out of me.

        Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

        Feingold for President

        by Goldfish on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:38:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Precedence (none)
          Weren't there other alki presnits?  Richard Nixon, toward the end there, certainly qualifies, IMHO.  Not to mention Pat, who wasn't president either...

          U.S. Grant.  Clearly...

          •  Yeah, Nixon was scary (none)
            whatever his problem was (alcohol or something else).

            So much so that some of his staff got together and made sure that the US military would have to get confirmation from someone else before obeying any orders to launch a nuclear strike.

            I am not in my own home, so I can't put my hands on the book this info is in, but it's a fairly well-known story.

            "America has left the building." --Jeff Wells

            by Hastur on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 05:32:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nixon (none)
            Wasn't an alcoholic. He went through a nervous break down (of which drinking was only one symptom). His behavior was so erratic, that at one point Nixon's chief of staff told the Joint Chiefs of Staff that they were to stand down if Nixon started giving them orders.

            Grant was an alcoholic, but he was President almost a full century before their were nuclear weapons, and at one of the lowest points for the power of the Presidency, so an analogy between him and a modern President would be flawed.

            Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

            Feingold for President

            by Goldfish on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 06:42:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Competence (4.00)
      The question of competence is the narrative of the day.  Is George Bush a competent leader?  No, he is not.  Why is he incompetent?  Is it a natural lack of the skills needed to lead the nation?  Does it have to do with moral failings?  Is he prone to vice?  Does he have bad advisors?

      This guy works for us and I think we deserve to have answers to these questions.

      "When you starve the beast, you starve the people. And the bathtub was a reference to New Orleans." -- bink

      by bink on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:22:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Given that this man... (4.00)
      has enormous power at his command, which includes life and death decisions for millions of people--such as ordering nuclear strikes--and given his personal history, this does not seem an inappropriate subject.  In fact, I wish it were discussed more often and more publicly.  
      •  Exactly right. (none)
        The one part of the Enquirer article that gives it a bit of credibility is the publicly verifiable observation that Bush disappears for long periods of time on his ranch and elsewhere.  Then there are the "naps" he is sometimes said to have been having when planes enter DC airspace, etc.  Don't get me wrong, I'm all for naps.  But there is a hint of a whisper of a pattern here.
    •  Are you shitting me?!? (4.00)
      A man who has the legal authority to cause a nuclear holocaust on twenty minutes notice being an alcoholic isn't an issue? Do I need to explain all the reasons that's a bad thing? Do I have to go look up the list of symptoms of alcoholism so you can see why an alcoholic in the Oval Office is a remarkably bad idea.

      Cute analogy with the Ted Kennedy, but Ted Kennedy isn't followed around by a guy with a suitcase full of missile codes.

      Who cares if the President is drinking? I do, and I think anyone who demands competent and fit leadership in a position of such extraordinary authority does too

      Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

      Feingold for President

      by Goldfish on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:35:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For what it's worth.... (4.00)
    ...his body language seems more and more alarming to me.

    Okay, this is going to maybe sound a little strange, but here goes...

    I'm fascinated with body language, and I have a weird habit of watching stuff with the sound turned off, to better focus on how people stand and sit and move. (I think the habit is a an unintended consequence of years of studying dance, but that's neither here nor there.) I periodically watch Bush clips on "mute."

    IMO, Bush's body language has gotten more and more distrubing over the past several years - more hunched, jerkier, twitchier, more side-long glances, and simultaneously both more defensive AND more hostile. He also doesn't "last" as long before he starts to "fall apart" on stage. It alarms me (well, even more than I'm otherwise alarmed), because it makes me worry that he really is going to pieces emotionally - whether due to drinking, (il)legal drugs, or just mental breakdown.  Which suggests that things could get even worse than they already are.  

    If you're not obsessed with body language like I am, you may think this is too kooky to take seriously.  But that's my observation - for what it's worth to your musings about his drinking/drugging/mental health.

    It may be profitable for you to reflect, in future, that there never were greed and cunning in the world yet that did not do too much, and overreach themselves.

    by ChaosMouse on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:05:12 PM PDT

  •  Tee Hee Hee (none)
    I'm sorry, I shouldn't gloat...especially as a recovering alcoholic of 16 years..BUT I CAN'T HELP IT!!! I just read the article online and it's right on the front page - just where the Grocery shoppers will all see it.
    I would have to differ with the author though, on the part about "each soldier's death has affected him".
    True or not - some folks see something in print and automatically assume it is fact.
    This ought to REALLY put him over the edge....and I can't wait. Lord knows he's put me over the edge the day after 2 elections.

    "Democrats win when people think"...Bill Clinton

    by Limabean on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:11:29 PM PDT

  •  I dont know (4.00)
    what GWB's problem is. It may very well be a return to the bottle.

    His behavior made absolutely no sense during the days leading up to Katrina: flying around the West making speeches when he sould have been in the WhiteHouse providing leadership.

     No amount of coverup photo ops in Mississipi and New Orleans will explain away the fact that Bush ran away from responsibility when the going got tough..

    Bush has a big problem. He owns the problem.  He owns the solution.--------------------------------------------------

    from

    http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article311498.ece
    09/10/05 "The Independent

    By Patrick Cockburn

    Again and again in New Orleans, as in Baghdad, the White House seems to be fatally detached from reality. In both places there is an inability to take on board bad news.

    Some of common failings in Iraq and Louisiana stem from the personality of President George Bush. There is the inability to welcome differing opinions or accept bad news. There is the refusal to fire or demote subordinates who have demonstrably failed in their jobs.

    Of course, in the short term these are not bad tactics. Deal with disaster by denying it has occurred. Don't fire anybody important; this would be an admission of failure. Claim that the media are exaggerating ill tidings and concealing the good news.

  •  BREAKING NEWS! (none)

    KARL ROVE IS REALLY THE BAT BOY!!!

    C'mon folks. Really.

    As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

    by kingubu on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:20:30 PM PDT

    •  Your ignorance is charming. (none)
      Batboy is from the Weekly world News, not the Inquirer, which (believe it or not) is about as accurate in their reporting as any MSM source. Take from that what you will.
      •  Yep, I'm A Charmer (none)

        Also charming is your defense of a tabloid rag as a credible source (facts? sources? confirmation?) when it happens to say something that you want to believe.

        Your lack of anything approaching a sense of humor, however, is somewhat less than charming.

        As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

        by kingubu on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:34:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All tabloids are not created equal. (none)
          I never said it was credible. But to dismiss it out of hand because you don't know anything about it, and to do it using a joke that doesn't apply to that paper - well, that's just idiocy.
          •  You're Right (none)

            My scurrilous guilt-by-assocoation attack on the credibility of one rumor rag referencing another, slighty more over the top rumor rag is proof that I'm an idiot. Point conceeded.

            Give my love to Bigfoot and the gray aliens.

            As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

            by kingubu on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:48:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Read the Slate article (none)
          by Jack Shafer.  Excerpts:

          Striving for the kind of journalistic accuracy that repels libel suits, the tabloid paid many of its sources and scrupulously reported and fact-checked its pieces about Cher, Liz and Dick, Jackie O., Liza, Henry Kissinger, Burt and Loni, and the original Charlie's Angels.
          ....

          By the time of the 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson-Ron Goldman murders, the Enquirer truth machine had become so good that reporter David Margolick was toasting it in the New York Times for scooping the competition--and applauding it for spiking many of the false stories that appeared in mainstream media.

          http://slate.msn.com/id/2102303/
           

          "I have no clue" - Bill O'Reilly quoted completely out of context. Hey fair's fair right?

          by chicagochamp on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:50:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never thought I would see the day..... (4.00)
            ....when The Enquirer would be a "reputable" story breaking rag, but during OJ, they were THE scoop publication. Adding to the madness was the Enquirer's editor appearing on E! network and breaking the latest on the case - and were scooping every other network.

            It was an indication that the MSM HAD really gone to hell - when a mag like the Enquirer was running circles around the MSM on OJ, that proved to me just how piss poor the MSM was and still is. Now some here might make the argument that OJ wasn't a story that deserved that coverage - and I agree - but when the MSM makes it the lead story and gets scooped by the Enquirer repeatedly on that case, it IS a real sad commentary on the MSM.

            Now I'm not ready to make the Enquirer the official newspaper of record for the USA, but on these kind of stories, they have a habit of being correct. The bigger the fish, the more the Enquirer puts into making sure (at least in thier mind) that the story IS correct.

            Even if it is not correct, it does, as another poster stated above, show the "holes" in Bush's armor (and the resultant "Clintonization"). Once the MSM sees "bullet holes" in Bush's armor and a public hunger for Bush's blood, the more they are willing to feed that hunger.

            And THAT'S a trend that's hard to shake. Once the media goes that route, it's all downhill for the Shrub.

             

        •  There's already been (none)
          A lengthy discussion on this diary about the fact that the Inquirer actually heavily vets there stories, and has broken several major scandals in the past including Jesse Jackson's love child, and (wait for it)... Rush's drug addiction!

          So, if you're so big on facts, maybe you should get yours in order before you start writing things off out of hand.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:42:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yeah, I Saw The Discussion (none)

            Though, it has expanded out a bit since I posted my little joke...

            And, yes, I read that Slate piece, too. You'll forgive me if one op/ed that alludes to "armies of fact checkers" but doesn't make hard comparisons to back its claims (like for example, an accuracy ratio of Inquirer stories over time) doesn't pass as a "fact" for me. Nor do I find the argument they should be believed because some of their stories have turned out to be true upon further investigation as especially meaningful with regard to their overall credibility. They have long history of printing rumor innuendo-- that some of those rumors may in fact be true does not speak to their methods.

            As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

            by kingubu on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:29:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  We have come to specialize in charming (none)
        ignorance at dailykos.  It's our special charism on the Internet.

        George W. Bush: The Disaster President

        by DCDemocrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:35:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Et Tu, DCDem? (none)

          Jeebus Toad Licking Cripes... it was a joke.

          Have we really gone so far down the path of eating our own that any and all jokes are treated as serious matters of debate? Are we so desperate to explain Bush's behavior that we'll resort to the tabloids for news? Does making fun of the credibility of the National Inquirer really deserves snarky correction? I guess so.

          As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

          by kingubu on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:14:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can we raise the level of dialogue again on (none)
            dailykos?

            George W. Bush: The Disaster President

            by DCDemocrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:19:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, We Cannot (none)

              Not by micro-parsing every obvious joke, at least. Or are you suggesting that that humor itself is what's lowering the level of discourse? See, in my mind, making a joke about the credibility of the Inquirer and perhaps getting people to think twice about taking it too seriously as a news source actually helps to elevate the discussion. Am I wrong?

              As long as the prerequisite for that shining Paradise is ignorance, bigotry, and hate... I say the Hell with it. --Inherit the Wind

              by kingubu on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:27:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  WTF is a... (none)
    "Texas-sized shot" anyway?
  •  Doesn't follow 12 steps (4.00)
    Bush has bragged about not needing the AA 12 step program to get off booze. That means he has not recovered.  So he still shows the signs. But the "rigidity" of Bush is not a 12 step thing--its the opposite.

    sign the petition at http://www.impeachbush.org

    by DrKate on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:32:24 PM PDT

  •  There is some research that indicates (4.00)
    the more brain damage an alcoholic has sustained from alcoholism, the more dogmatic they become.  There is a need for a certain degree of inflexibility to be able to maintain the supports for abstinence.  The less damage to the brain, the greater the flexibility.

    George W. Bush: The Disaster President

    by DCDemocrat on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

  •  Who cares? (4.00)
    He's just as fucking stupid whe he's sober.

    My next diary will suck.

    by Bob Johnson on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:37:37 PM PDT

  •  If he is off the wagon, (none)
    it isn't because a bunch of people were killed or displaced.
    More likely caussed by plummeting ratings.
  •  Seriously... (none)
    It seems he's sick with something, but probably not drinking; it would be hard to conceal because of the very strong odor of booze wafting about 5-10 feet in every direction. ALL of his staff would know it immediately, as well as anyone coming into contact with him.
    I would say it's Graves Disease, or AF or early Alzheimer's or something like that.

    See:
    http://www.la.indymedia.org/news/2004/12/120690.php

  •  Intervention! (none)
    I say that millions of his closest friends should get together in Washington DC and stage an intervention, for his own good.

    What are you guys up to this weekend?

    --
    The neocons will not give us our country back. If we want it back, we'll have to take it.
    --Lila Garrett

    by peacemonger on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:41:44 PM PDT

  •  What took them so long? (none)
    I heard he's been drinking again for over a year.

    "Lies, lies, lies, ye-ah... they're going to get you." --The Thompson Twins

    by modchick65 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 02:41:53 PM PDT

  •  Remember Kerry's recent comments (4.00)
    As they say, the first step towards recovery is to get out of denial.
    The administration is recycling all their failed policies and shipping them to Louisiana. After four years of ideological excess, these Washington Republicans have a bad hangover -- and they can't think of anything to offer the Gulf Coast but the hair of the dog that bit them.
    Those of course are terms that refer to alcoholism. I think Kerry was speaking in code, and tweaking Bush indirectly, certainly regarding his former status as a drinker, but perhaps based on insider knowledge of Bush's current level of sobriety.

    The most compelling argument for Bush being off the wagon is the story from Newsweek regarding his having "gone to bed" the night before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. People's hair was on fire, as it were, yet he decides to delegate and catch his usual 8 hours? That strains credulity in the extreme. What thinking person could bow out knowing a HUGE catastrophe was looming? We know he was given unvarnished information about the storm prior to it's landfall. Yet he still goes to bed? My suspicion is that he was unable to function, either because he was drunk or some other undisclosed reason.

    I take the National Enquirer with a grain of salt, but seems to me like some people may know something about George that the rest of us don't.

    •  C'mon - Bush? A "thinking person?" (none)
      First, Bush would actually have to comprehend that disaster was looming. Even assuming that his staff was keeping him appropriately informed -- i.e., they weren't spending all their time playing "rock, paper, scissors" to determine which luckless soul had to give him bad news; if, in fact, those further up the (real) food chain from him were actually letting him have the information -- do you really think he has sufficient sense, let alone intelligence, to get it? Really? He prides himself on his anti-intellectualism; understanding a meteorological report requires thought and effort.

      Second, even if he had been informed and did comprehend what was about to happen, do you really think that, given the total lack of empathy and concern, displayed repeatedly over the past 5 years, for anybody who wasn't part of his "base" -- do you really think he gave a damn what happened once the oil platforms were evacuated?

      Not to say I don't believe he's drinking -- I do. I just don't think that we need to invoke anything more than his previously demonstrated callousness and incompetence to explain his refusal to allow Katrina to interfere with his sleep.

      "America has left the building." --Jeff Wells

      by Hastur on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:17:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why the National Enquirer is surprisingly credible (none)
    I Believe the National Enquirer
    Almost three decades ago, the National Enquirer abandoned the traditional supermarket tabloid formula of UFOs, bizarre sex, séances, gross-outs, Loch Ness-ish monsters, cooked-up stories, and celebrity gossip for a new formula mostly devoted to celebrities. Striving for the kind of journalistic accuracy that repels libel suits, the tabloid paid many of its sources and scrupulously reported and fact-checked its pieces about Cher, Liz and Dick, Jackie O., Liza, Henry Kissinger, Burt and Loni, and the original Charlie's Angels.

    Not to mention Rush Limbaugh's oxycontin habit and Jesse Jackson's love child.
  •  He's drunk, allright!! (none)
    Drunk on power and privilege. he's a spoiled little fuck who has never had to earn a single thing in his entire silver-lined life...
  •  So Now We're Quoting from the Enquirer? (none)
    Bush can be brought down by a long list of criminal activity, derelictions of duties, incompetent decisions and disastrous policies that can be credibly verified, so why resort to this kind of trash from a trashy rag, let along recommend it so highly?  Kinda sad and unnecessary, don't you think?
  •  I'm not buying it (none)
    Because I don't beleive that Bush cared enough about the Levees breaking. This almost sounds like a Rove plant to show that he did care.
  •  I don't think W is a 12-stepper, (none)
    He went cold turkey (or so I learned in this diary), but he is definitely showing classic signs of narcisistic personality disorder.

    I am the federal government.

    by mateosf on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:06:40 PM PDT

  •  First of all... (none)
    many of you fail to realize that alcoholism is a disease. There is nothing to gloat about a person with a disease.  Even if you despise him as I do.

    Secondly, none of you have any personal proof that he is indeed chemically dependent.  Unless you are a qualified professional that is able to give him a thorough examination, all of this is speculation at best.

    •  I realize alcoholism is a disease (4.00)
      In fact, I have lived it. On November 26, should I make it so far, I will celebrate 22 (gulp!) years of sobriety. I am fortunate indeed that I was able to recognize my alcoholism and do something about it before I succeeded in fucking up my whole life. My kid sister, who has not been as lucky, discovered her alcoholism while in her late thirties, worki,ng full time and married with two kids. She will celebrate four years of sobriety next month. My family is riddled on both sides with heavy drinkers and outright alcoholics. So is my wife's, for that matter. I have a pretty good idea of what a hell alcoholism creates for the drinker and the people around the drinker.

      That said, I still think the Chimp is fair game. Until the Goopers stop holding him up as an exemplar of Christian virtue, until Rove and his buddies stop flinging evil shit at anyone who might possibly cross Saint Georgie's path - I have no problems with anybody busting Binge W. Lush's chops for being a dry drunk or a wet drunk or a blob of semi-intelligent plasma from the planet Tralfamadore. He would cheerfully do the same to you or me if he thought it might be fun.

      I don't think that there are any Russians, and there ain't no Yanks... just corporate criminals playing with tanks. - Michael Been

      by gp39m on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:22:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amen (4.00)
        To that! You have me beat by 6 years and Lord knows I respect sobriety and all that it has brought me....but I DON'T respect hypocrisy and I DON'T respect lying, thieving, murderous thugs and I really do not respect people who claim to be "moral and Christian" and whose actions prove otherwise. Therefore, I don't respect Bush and he's fair game to me. Nothing we can do or say on this forum can POSSIBLY come close to anything he and his cronies have done to Americans and the rest of the world.
        And sometimes we just need to VENT!!

        "Democrats win when people think"...Bill Clinton

        by Limabean on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:08:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Don't see people gloating (none)
      What I see for the most part -- except for some certainly understandable snark -- is people discussing
         1) an explanation for his (appalling/inexplicable/inappropriate/[your adjective here]) behavior, and

         2) a potential avenue for his removal from an office for which -- for whatever reason -- he is manifestly unfit.

      "America has left the building." --Jeff Wells

      by Hastur on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:39:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You never know. (none)
    That's the problem with the National Enquirer; they are more often wrong than right. Then, they trumpet the times that they are right. Anything coming from them, without further collaboration, is sheer speculation at this point.
  •  I think it's dangerous (none)
    to believe a story of questionable source just because you want it to be true.  (And I gather from the snarking that some people want it.)  

    This sort of laziness kills critical thinking (and lead to the invasion of Iraq).

    We have enough to digest with Bush's behavior already, we don't need speculation.  And why would National Enquirer, a conservative magazine include such an article?  To increase their audience.  From the tone of people here, it sounds like a bunch are ready to run out and buy it.

  •  Has anyone ever thought the impeach bush mantra (none)
    through, I mean do you really want Dick Cheney as president, and I mean head down the line past Cheney considering his heart disease...ugh, double ugh....not a pretty story...I hope this country will still be intact by 2008.

    There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by otis704 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:19:19 PM PDT

    •  This guy? (none)

      Note from stagna:  
      I've scheduled therapy, don't worry.

      •  AAAAUUUUUGH!!!! (none)
        that pic is truly frightening, need to figure out a way to make it a mask for halloween.

        also - if bush goes and cheney drops from whatever ailments, you realize who that leaves us with?  hastert!!!

        AAAAAAUUUUGH!!!

        (scared myself that time)

        "Those who had the chance for 4 years and could not produce peace should not be given another chance - Nixon

        by dukeraoul on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:39:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  As the daughter of an alcoholic (4.00)
    it is clear to me that Bush is a drunk.

    Dry drunk or wet, he thinks and acts like a drunk.

    He will never hold himself accountable for anything.

    Laura Bush may, indeed, be calling the shots in that relationship.  But I daresay either it is either Karen Hughes or Condi Rice who are pouring the shots, when they need to get the President's unfocused attention.

    They both have positively Pavlovian relationships with Bush.

    •  Honey, Condi has more than a "Pavlovian" (none)
      relationship with Bush. Who do you think she was buying those shoes for?

      Some friends from the South turned me on to this years ago. At first, I hemmed and hawed. And, FWIW, they're black. They say if you're even Southern you see it. And if you're black and southern, doubly obvious.

      Watch their body language, esp. when the 3 (Condi, Bush, Laura) are together.

      In troubling times, it's good to read true stories about real people doing good things. HeroicStories, free

      by AllisonInSeattle on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 02:11:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He is far more dangerous than a drunk (none)
    I think his behavior indicates that he is a classic Sociopath
  •  Hey! It's Enough... (none)
    ...that it's in print.  I always like that deep hum of rumor and innuendo, especially when it's Bush.  What is wrong with me?

    "Ninety-nine miles of solid-gold track, lay on the whistle and don't look back..."

    by InquisitiveRaven on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 03:46:00 PM PDT

  •  In order to believe this story... (none)
    ...I would have to accept that George W. Bush gives a shit on any level about what happens to the people of New Orleans.  I would have to accept that he has something resembling a conscience, or the most rudimentary grasp of cause and effect.

    All evidence is to the contrary.

  •  The National Enquirer is read by (4.00)
    Bush's base, people like my Toledo aunt who doesn't know anything about politics but believes that Bush is a "good Christian". This is a significant attack on Bush by the same media that saved Arnold's bacon in California by paying to gag his mistress. I think this story has very interesting political implications when you consider the readership of the National Enquirer and how they have treated Bush with kid gloves in the past as information on his drug use and military shirking was all over the MSM.
  •  My company looked at the National Enquirer (4.00)
    When I worked in private equity, my company invested in the buy by David Pecker.

    The first thing we did was look at the cost of lawsuits against them for false storied.

    They only lost ONE. They had very few lawsuits. They tried very hard not to just make shit up.

    I can't vouch for the way things are under Pecker now, but I am inclined to believe this, based on their track record.

  •  Discredited (none)
    From the article:

    The handling of the Katrina crisis and troop losses in Iraq have fueled public discontent and pushed Bush back to drink.

    Clearly, it's untrue. The above sentence suggests that Bush actually gives a shit about Katrina victims and troop losses.

    Spare the poor people of Crawford, Texas. Send Bush a one-way ticket to the moon instead.

    by JacksonBlogs on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:11:12 PM PDT

    •  Aha! it IS true!! (none)
      I just reread that text you so neatly blockquoted and it's TRUE!!

      He's worried sick about the public discontent that lead to his tanking approval rating!!

      Heh.  All in the parsing.  This time I got it right.

  •  Please don't insult 12 Step recovery (none)
    by associating the presidential disaster with it.  Bush is clearly what we call a "dry drunk" who has never done the work on himself required by the 12 Steps.  Those of us who have, accept responsibility for ourselves, acknowledge our mistakes and try to make them right.  Dry drunks never admit mistakes and always try to find some scapegoat to blame & shame.

    Since Bush's alledged sobriety has been of the white knuckle kind, falling of the wagon (& trying to hide it) is extremely likely.

    Visualize impeachment

    •  why... (none)
      why did you give me a one for saying its not a spiritual program? My sponsor has been sober for over 20 years and is an atheists.

      what right do you have to rate people 1s for giving their opinion? I think it's important for people who have a desire to get sober to know that it's not about GOD right off -- if they choose that path later down --they can -- but you can be in AA and not believe in God.

      "So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause..."

      by CrazyDem on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 10:04:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  W was on somethin', at peak of election (none)
    Remember he and Sen. Mc Cain went to the press galley on AF1 a few days after the first debate? W had a jolly and loose way about his speech and expressing his thoughts. Perhaps it was some soothing meds, if not JD.
  •  Ask yourself this (none)
    would the last four years have been differnet in any significant way even if Bush had been swilling Beam?
  •  If the Boss Has a Problem, Maybe You Do, Too (none)
    Hmmmm. Maybe the NY Times is trying to tell us something:

    If the Boss Has a Problem, Maybe You Do, Too
    By MATT VILLANO

    Q. Your boss has begun to display a pattern of irrational behavior, and it is putting a strain on people in the office. What should you do?

    A. A shift in your boss's ordinary workplace behavior should arouse concern, said Gerald M. Groe, an organizational psychologist and professional development consultant in Parrish, Fla. "Just because your boss is the boss doesn't mean he is impervious to stress and suffering," said Mr. Groe, who has served as a human resources executive at both American Express and Cigna.

    Q. Which types of behavior are cause for alarm?

    A. There's no formula for assessing irrational behavior. "If you've worked for your boss for a while, you probably know what types of actions would seem odd," said John Baldoni, a management consultant in Ann Arbor, Mich. He said that unprovoked tirades by the boss could be just as suggestive of trouble as his disappearing for days at a time.

    Out-of-character behavior could be caused by almost anything - including personal issues such as alcoholism, chronic depression or problems at home, as well as under-the-radar stresses at work, such as an internal audit, lawsuit or performance review. Whatever the reason, Mr. Baldoni says, it is prudent to note unusual behavior and to compile a written record of your observations in case you are asked for specifics down the line.

    Q. Is it a good idea to discuss concerns about the boss with your colleagues?

    A. Pamela J. Holland, chief operating officer of Brody Communications, a leadership training firm in Philadelphia, says that as long as you are careful not to say anything that may be regarded as undercutting your boss, sharing your concerns with co-workers may be helpful. "Talking about the situation with colleagues might help you realize that perhaps the boss's behavior is indicative of a much larger problem," said Ms. Holland, author of "Help! Was That a Career Limiting Move?" (Career Skills Press, 2001).

    Q. If your colleagues agree that something is wrong, should you act as a group?

    A. Resist the urge to confront the boss as a group, said Alexandra Delis-Abrams, a psychologist in Sun Valley, Idaho. "If he's going through a tough time, that could only make things worse," Ms. Delis-Abrams said. She added that a group confrontation might be perceived as sabotage or mutiny. "Sometimes it's just gentler to raise concerns in a more private forum," she said.

    Q. How do you broach the issue with your boss, one on one?

    A. Respectfully, and only if you are close enough to your boss to approach him directly. Schedule a private meeting. If you think that your boss would be more comfortable having a discussion outside the office, ask him out to lunch, or suggest a midday walk for a breath of fresh air.

    When you have your boss's attention, be direct. Anna Maravelas, a licensed psychologist and president of the consulting firm TheraRising.com in St. Paul, suggests beginning the conversation by stating an appreciation for open lines of communication, then moving quickly into a statement of the facts that are cause for concern. Here, she said, it is important to call upon some of your documented observations, and to contrast the new behavior with patterns from the past.

    "You want to ask the boss for his help in understanding the change," she said. "After that, stay positive by asking what you can do to maintain your performance in light of the current situation."

    Q. What if you're uncomfortable with the idea of a direct discussion?

    A. While it's best to engage your boss in person, there are ways to express your concern discreetly or even confidentially, and that may be a wise move if you are concerned that your boss may react negatively or retaliate against you at work. Mr. Baldoni, the consultant from Michigan, said it was perfectly acceptable for employees to take their documented observations and opinions directly to the boss's boss, as long as they couch their opinions in broader terms of concern for the company's performance.

    "You're not being a tattletale if you run up the ladder," said Mr. Baldoni, author of "Great Motivation Secrets of Great Leaders" (McGraw Hill, 2005). "Just as a team has the right to confront an underperforming team member, a team has the right to demand more from its manager, as well."

    In cases in which a boss has committed sexual or physical harassment, employees should report the incident immediately to the human resources department and, if necessary, seek assistance outside the company. Arthur H. Bell, professor of management communications at the McLaren School of Business at the University of San Francisco, said that such behavior violated Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a law that protects employees against hostile work environments of many kinds. Q. How should you respond if your boss asks you for help?

    A. Always lend an ear, but if your boss opens up about personal problems, be careful to keep the interaction professional. Ms. Maravelas, the psychologist from Minnesota, said that it was best to refer your boss to an outside specialist or an employee assistance program, if your company has one. "Don't feel forced to take it upon yourself to fix your boss's problems," Ms. Maravelas said. "At a time of tension or stress, simply showing a thread of warmth and compassion can go a long, long way."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/business/yourmoney/18advi.html?8dpc=&pagewanted=print

    "How can it be that we elected a 10-year-old President and 4 years later he is STILL 10 years old??!!"

    by Fatherflot on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:55:52 PM PDT

  •  Why would the WH want this story out there? (none)
    Why would the White House want to plant this story?  The sympathy it would garner is small compared to the amount of his base that would turn on him if it were to come out he began drinking again.

    His abstaining from alcohol was a major selling point for many people that bought into the "George love Jesus. Jesus loves you. George and Jesus love you" campaigning.

  •  Now, watch this drive (none)
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050829-7.html

    I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 2005 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this month with appropriate programs and activities.
  •  Pretzel Schmetzel! (none)
    This boondocks cartoon was censored in most of the country

    "No one thought" will be the epitaph of Bush's reign on America

    by lawnorder on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:22:01 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site