posted
I consider that he was caught drunk driving to be much more serious. It's why I voted for Nader in 2000.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, a drunk driving arrest is serious--but it's part of the public record, there's no denying it. Whereas Bush successfully stonewalled the illegal drugs issue until he's safely ensconsed in his final term.
I guess congratulations are in order?
My favorite part of the tapes that I heard last night was when he proclaimed that he wouldn't come clean about his illegal drug use "for the sake of the children."
Riiight. His political future had nothing to do with that decision, uh-huh. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you people worried about the fact that he did it or the fact that he wouldn't say that he did it?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, you seem willing to take George Bush at his word when it damages his credibility, but even when he's recorded candidly speaking to what he thought was a trusted friend you assume that he must be evil at heart. Considering the nature of the conversations, I believe his genuine interest was protecting kids from making the same mistakes.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My brother is a politician. Well, he lost his last election, so he is working for the governor, but I think that makes him a politican, still, just not elected?
Anyway, he knew when he was fourteen that he either wanted to be a politician or an NBA referee. (HE is one of those goal-oriented folks who actually follow through on their goals, unlike, well, me)
He knew that, if he wanted to go into politics, he would have to keep his nose clean, and he did. His opponenents still tried to drudge up things about him, but it was not easy, as there was nothing real for them to go for, except his politics.
I just don't know why people who go into politics think they will be able to hide their past.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
nfl, in the context of the call for everyone taking "personal responsibility" for their actions, I don't really think this washes. Surely the bigger lesson might've been worth teaching here. But Bush has not been all that keen to take personal responsibility for things that he's done in his life and so his message on moral issues rings not just a little bit hollow to these ears.
I could care less that he smoked dope, actually. I don't see that as a failure in any way. If, on the other hand, he drove under the influence of it, or lied about it when asked, I supposed I'd have to mark him down for that.
This lame excuse about "the children" reminds me of a Simpsons episode wherein the class president tears Marge's prom dress and then tells her to keep it quiet because if word got out it could literally destroy the school.
posted
You keep on referring to it as an "excuse," but you're either going to have to admit that its the truth or claim that he lies to his friends in what he believes are private conversations.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry nfl, I should've said it sounds like an excuse, rather than assume that it is one.
I'll also call it a convenient fiction that is, perhaps coincidentally, obviously self-serving.
One might ask why you're so willing to give GWB the benefit of the doubt. I mean, it's not like anyone's clamoring for his impeachment over this. It's just him displaying a very human ability to take the easy way out.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh no, so he smoked a few joints, maybe even did a few lines. It does not sound like he made any mistakes to me; he is a two-term President. As for not inhaling, some people really do have trouble getting the hang of it, espceially if they do not smoke cigarettes.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and then some because he was speaking candidly with someone who he thought was a friend. You treating his statements as his they were from an official speech or and from an interview with Dan Rather. He wasn't being interviewed, he wasn't trying to win over the populace, he was just talking to friend. So either make the accusation that he's such a horrible person that he lies in private to his friends or accept that we have no reason to assume that he isn't telling the truth.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lying? Where? Please point out the lie. And I am asking you to be VERY specific. And please quote reliable sources to back up your claims too. Thanks.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Newfound, that's a forced dichotomy. There are other choices.
For example, I believe he might have been telling the truth about not wanting to influence children negatively. Do as I say, not as I do and all that. Plenty of parents from the sixties have done that.
But it would also be damaging to his political carrer, especially being a Republican, to admit any drug use, and this is obviously an additional reason to not be forthcoming about drug use. You can have multiple motivations for an act.
Additionally, Bush could be lying to himself about why he stonewalled the issue, as well as his friend. That is not unheard of either.
I don't think this bombshell neccesarily makes him a horrible person. Just another hypocritical politician instead of the selfless protector of kids he likes to think of himself.
posted
Morbo's right. There are lots of alternative explanations. Many of them sound very plausible to me.
Jay...I'm just expressing an opinion here, not trying the guy in a court of law. I don't find his claims of a noble intent very convincing because I think this is one of those things that people in general, and people with something BIG to lose in particular, are likely to be less than candid about. With themselves, with others.
nfl, I hope you got it from what Morbo wrote. But if not, I'm giving up. It's not worth trying to convince you of what my experience shows me to be true. You've either seen people do this very thing or you haven't. I'm very biased about politicians in general, however, and don't tend to believe much of what they say regardless of who they say it to. Throughout his political career, I've had less reason to believe in Bush's sincerity than I have other politicians I've seen. He's not the worst of them, but he is nowhere near the best.
I'd put him in the bottom 1/3 of all that I've ever paid attention to as far as sincerity and truthfulness go.
Again, personal opinion only. I doubt we'd see eye to eye on the things that made me have such a low opinion of him. This current thing is just a small example of how we're likely to disagree on the interpretation of his character.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. Living proof that someone can change their life.
How's your struggle going, Thor?
In any case-- is anyone suprised that he didn't come clean at the first? It seems a pity; I would have respected him much more for saying, "Yes, I had a problem with drinking and with drugs. Through lots of professional help, I've been able to overcome it."
But this is just another notch in the 'I can't trust Bush' stick for me.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Clinton claims that he did not have an extramarital affair. He lied. The Republicans try to impeach him over it.
Bush claims that he never smoked marijuana. He lied. But that's OK (so far...)
Maybe someone can tell me which one is a felony, or a misdemeanor, or just plain immoral, but with no "legal" consequence.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference is that one of them lied under oath in an attempt to deny the opposition in a civil suit their lawfully due discovery.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand why he would have misled people about his past history of substance misuse. It was what I expected.
I understand why he would adopt a strategy of courting the religious right. It was what I expected, but frankly I found this more troubling than the history of substance misuse.
[Edit for clarity: I haven't a problem with his having a past history of substance misuse, especially given that this is a problem that is in the past for him. I am, however, unsettled by the comments on the tapes which seem to indicate that Bush rather deliberately and cynically planned which buzzwords to use in proclaiming his faith. I am not surprised by it, but I don't like it.]
posted
What Dag said is true. In a larger sense, Clinton's lies are probably less serious than Bush's (nobody died as a result of Clinton lying about sex), but our legal system does treat it VERY seriously when someone lies during discovery.
Lying under oath is a separate crime (in the legal sense) which Bush et al. are not guilty of but Clinton clearly was.
Clinton was an idiot in that whole deal about Monica and the other women he basically abused. (Abuse of power is abuse, IMHO). He's got serious sexual problems and was immoral with respect to issues like fidelity, sexual relations, and abuse of his position of authority to secure sexual favors.
Bush has other problems and has also displayed a streak of immorality. He's also smarter in his handling of situations where he could face impeachment if he lies. It doesn't make him a better President, IMHO. It makes him smarter in listening to his advisors or knowing how to stay within the laws of the land. But his misuse of intelligence information to promote a war was immoral and will continue to remain immoral even if the war turns out to be the best thing that ever happened to the people of Iraq.
See...lying to the American people to get your way is fine under the laws of this country. Lying in a court of law or lying to Congress is NOT okay.
That's our system. I think it sucks.
I also think that legalistic arguments about who is displaying better "morals" are ridiculous. Clinton's lies were abhorrent, self-serving and done mainly to protect his legacy. Bush's lies are essentially the same from any moral code I'd care to live under. The fact that he doesn't see them as lies is just part of the American Presidential pathology as far as I'm concerned.
Not unique to Bush by any stretch.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not know how many times politicians have lead lives of "illegal partying", and then when elected took the stance of "We must be Hard on drug users, Jail is the Only Way!".
Wether it be W. Bush, Rush Limbaugh, Al Gore or who ever, they are basiclly saying "MY life would have been better if I was thrown in jail." Which is a total lie.
A difference between Clinton and Bush, Clinton was ALWAYS known as "slick willy", a say the right things to his present audience kind of guy so him fudging was expected of his personality, that was his MO, where as Bush and Company advertise him as a Totally Honest Crusader for Truth and Justice!
Bottom Line: People SHOULD NOT go to jail for using drugs.
If people committ REAL crimes while under the influence they should be punished as such.
posted
Thor, you do not understand. If you are white and have enough cash for a private defense attorney, you are not going to jail for a first offense felony drug possession charge. Now you could get in trouble if you gave an equal or lesser sum to the judge, jury, or prosecuting attorney, but paying your defense attorney is a perfectly acceptable way to avoid much punishment. Thank God for the way our justice system works. The more famous one is, the less likely one will be persecuted.
Sucks to be black and/or poor. Remember, poor black (or Mexican) young adults are probably gang members or drug dealers, but rich white drug dealers just made a few poor choices and are determined to get off the path of destruction.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In DC, it's rare for anyone who pleads out to go to jail on a first offense felony possession charge, because there is a standing policy to offer attempt to possess with intent to distribute (intent to distribute is an element of all felony possession in DC). Under the voluntary sentencing guidelines, the entire range is eligible for supervised release of some kind.
Aggravating circumstances (loaded firearm, high amount, etc.) will take such an offer off the table, of course.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
