While it is commendable that Bush has quit Drinking. It is also true that he is an alcoholic, and I would feel better that he not be President of the USA. There are too many occasions where toasting is in order with all of the formal affairs of the White House, and who is to say that he will not slip. His lack of intelligence is already lacking. Could you imagine if he was under the influence of alcohol. His father pucked at a formal table, I would hate to chance an embarassment by George W. if he decided on a formal engagement of the White House to take a drink. By the way, Does he attend AA?.
By Anonymous on Friday, November 3, 2000 - 07:53 pm:
You questioned something that Bush did 24 years ago!!!!
Back in the 1970s, a drunk driving arrest was embarrassing, but sometimes that's all it was...
While Gore, for 8 years, he is in cahoot with Clinton and selling Whitehouse Bedroom's tickets. This is more embarrassing and deceitful! Clinton-Gore are selling out to the Chinese and Hollywood !!
By Anonymous on Friday, November 3, 2000 - 11:11 pm:
Bush is a recovered ALCOHOLIC. At one time in the past, many people had problems with drinking and smoking ... This is no excuse but it is part of life... As long as the person recognized, learned from his/her mistake and stopped.
CLINTON and GORE are STILL practicing their dame pathelogical lies.
Since this is BUSH who is, in your eyes.. morally wrong. NOW is the time for Character issue to be of important matter? Does it works only for Republican character and NOT FOR the DEMS?? you talk about Hypocricy ..
Oh yeah, we forgot already when Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman?"
Gore is not Clinton but then all these illegal campaign fund raising and lying about it and all other lies. IT is ok for GORE to keep on doing it?
By Anonymous on Wednesday, August 8, 2001 - 09:46 pm:
MEMO: HILL PUSHED
FOR COKE PARDON
By BRIAN BLOMQUIST and DEBORAH ORIN
August 8, 2001 -- WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton wanted a convicted cocaine dealer sprung from prison, and it was "very important" to her, the former first lady's brother told the White House, according to a bombshell memo obtained by The Post.
The handwritten note, on White House stationery, appears to contradict Clinton's repeated claims that she knew nothing about brother Hugh Rodham's pardon-for-pay work to get her husband to free drug trafficker Carlos Vignali.
"Hugh says this is very important to him and the first lady as well as others," says the note, which investigators said is from a file on the Vignali matter kept by Bruce Lindsey, who was former President Bill Clinton's closest White House aide.
Bill Clinton freed Vignali on Jan. 20, over angry objections from the U.S. attorney's office, after Vignali had served only six years of a 15-year prison term for conspiring to sell more than 800 pounds of coke.
The note, from last December or January, is in the National Archives files for the Clinton White House and bears the stamp "Clinton library photocopy."
The memo is unsigned, but appears to be addressed to Lindsey and written by someone who knows the Clintons and their family, since it refers to Sen. Clinton's brother by his first name.
It suggests either Rodham lied to the Clinton White House, or Hillary Clinton lied when she later denied knowing anything about the pardon, for which her brother was paid $204,000 by Vignali's family.
Rodham was living with the Clintons on the third floor of the White House when Bill Clinton issued his controversial slew of 11th-hour pardons and sentence commutations, including Vignali's.
Sen. Clinton insisted at a news conference last February: "I did not know my brother was involved in any way in any of this."
Her spokeswoman, Karen Dunn, last night, said only: "We have nothing to add to what's already been said."
Rodham's lawyer, Nancy Luque, said he didn't speak to Sen. Clinton about Vignali.
"I seriously doubt whether he ever said that it was important to her," Luque said.
The House Government Reform Committee, which is probing the pardons, has written Rodham, asking him to explain "why you informed anyone on the White House staff that the Vignali matter was ‘very important' to you and the first lady."
The committee notes in its letter that Luque had told the House panel that Rodham "had no contact with President Clinton or Sen. Clinton" regarding Vignali.
Both Clintons have denied knowing Rodham was being paid by Vignali's family, but Bill Clinton has never explained why he pardoned Vignali.
I rather have the ex-drunk (more than 10+ years ago) than THE 2 CROOKS!!
By Anonymous on Sunday, June 13, 2004 - 03:56 pm:
June 12, 2004, 9:54PM
Last laugh might be Bush's, too
By MAX BOOT
Listening to the endless encomiums to Ronald Reagan, many from people who once derided him, I couldn't help wonder whether some day George W. Bush would receive similar tributes from his current enemies. It seems unlikely, even to me, but then it seemed pretty unlikely 20 years ago that the Gipper would ever win widespread acclaim as one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history.
It is bracing to open a book such as Dinesh D'Souza's Reagan biography and be reminded of what was actually said about him during his presidency. The man now eulogized as a giant was famously derided as an "amiable dunce" by Democrat Clark Clifford.
Robert Wright of the New Republic said he was "virtually brain-dead"; Nicholas von Hoffman called him an "unlettered, self-assured bumpkin" in Harper's Magazine; and Kevin Phillips complained he was trying to govern "based on maxims out of McGuffey's Reader and Calvin Coolidge."
Barbara Ehrenreich titled her book about the 1980s The Worst Years of Our Lives. Reagan was accused of being a "reckless cowboy" and a "simple-minded ideologue" (Mark Hertsgaard) who was leading the nation toward nuclear annihilation.
These accusations were not particularly controversial among the chattering classes in the 1980s; they were (and in some quarters remain) received wisdom. The only wonder among the sophisticates was how Reagan fooled so many people into supporting him. Then-Rep. Patricia Schroeder provided the explanation when she said he was the "Teflon president" to whom no charge ever stuck.
What was the source of all this animus? Part of it was personal: Reagan, a C student at Eureka College and a B-movie actor, couldn't win the respect of A-list intellectuals. They thought he wasn't up to running the country. But mostly it was ideological. Reagan's ideas flouted the intellectual fashions of his day.
In 1981, the consensus was that the nation was suffering from "malaise." The best that could be hoped for, the smart set believed, was to strike an accommodation with the Soviet Union and to lower our economic expectations. Reagan scoffed at such pessimism. He set about reviving the economy with tax cuts and consigning the "Evil Empire" to the ash heap of history by raising defense spending and supporting anti-communist rebels abroad. He was not content to manage problems. He wanted to transcend them. And he did.
The similarities with George W. Bush are uncanny. As Reagan was, he is thought to be an intellectual lightweight too stupid to understand how ruinous his policies are. He is getting as much grief as Reagan did for not bowing to the logic of deterrence and containment. Reagan's alternative was the Strategic Defense Initiative; Bush's, the doctrine of pre-emption. Reagan was derided for his stark depiction of the Cold War as a "struggle between right and wrong, good and evil." Bush uses similar language in the war on terrorism — and earns similar derision.
On domestic policy, Bush, as Reagan was, is attacked for opposing abortion, appointing hard-line judges and generally catering to the Christian right. He is also pilloried for running up massive deficits with his tax cuts that supposedly favor the rich.
It is possible to make too much of the comparisons with Reagan, not all of which work in Bush's favor. Reagan was a better communicator, with a readier wit and more developed political convictions worked out over his many decades in public life.
Also, some of the similarities do not cast either man in a flattering light. Both were hands-off managers who were hurt by the feuding between their secretaries of defense and state. Presidential inattention helped produce scandals such as Iran-Contra and Abu Ghraib.
Yet, by and large, Bush is achieving impressive results with his Reagan-esque approach: The economy is booming, and terrorists are on the run in Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is unlikely that Bush will win the immediate vindication that Reagan achieved when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. He is closer to the beginning than the end of a long struggle. But Bush still has a good chance of winning unexpected cheers in a few years' time — as long as he doesn't heed the jeers directed his way at the moment.
Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York City.
By pkcapfvqeey on Wednesday, January 26, 2011 - 06:34 pm: