cannabisnews.com: Governor Bush's Cocaine Problem!





Governor Bush's Cocaine Problem!
Posted by FoM on August 20, 1999 at 08:47:59 PT
DRC Net's Weekly Update News
Source: DRC Net
First he refused to confirm or deny it. Later he would say only that "when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Next he said that the issue wasn't relevant. Then he said that he wouldn't address "rumors." 
Then he said that he could pass a standard security check dating back seven years. Finally, he said that he could've passed the security check in his father's White House -- fifteen years. Though he had to think before specifying whether he could've passed it then or now. Now, no matter what he says, the issue seems destined to dog him until the day he comes clean. Texas Governor and Republican presidential frontrunner George W. Bush, Jr. has a cocaine problem. Under normal circumstances, an individual's past drug use, especially if that use occurred in the distant past, should not be relevant to their qualifications for present employment. But in the race for the United States Presidency, it is relevant on two counts. In fact, in Governor Bush's case, it is relevant on three. As governor of Texas, George W. Bush, Jr. supported and signed legislation increasing penalties for drug possession in that state. In one instance, Governor Bush signed legislation mandating jail time for people caught with less than a single gram of cocaine. As a candidate, Bush's handling of the cocaine question offers clues as to how he deals with embarrassing mistakes -- admit them and move on, or obfuscate and side-step. As President, Governor Bush would preside over a national drug policy that is increasingly punitive, the driving force behind the Nation's ascendancy to the title of world's most prolific incarcerator. In 1992, Republicans asked whether Democratic candidate Bill Clinton could summon the moral authority to send young people to war, given the fact that he had successfully avoided military service during his youth. Today, Governor Bush must be asked whether he can summon the moral authority to send young people to prison, given the fact that he had avoided the DEA in his youth. It is becoming increasingly clear that George Junior most likely did toot a line or two back in his halcyon days. The relevant question, then, is whether or not he believes that five or ten years in prison would have been the appropriate societal response to that use. And if not, why he believes that such treatment is appropriate for the children of fathers who were not Ambassadors to China, Directors of the CIA, Vice Presidents or Commanders-in-Chief. The truth is that George Junior was never in much danger of being treated like less fortunate Americans who get sucked into our runaway criminal justice system. As the rich son of a powerful man, it is unlikely that he would have been pulled over, searched, or busted in a street sweep. Rich people don't buy their coke on the street, in quarter gram increments. And if by some strange confluence of events he had been caught and arrested -- rather than sent on his way with a wave of his ID -- he would have certainly had an expensive attorney, and a spot waiting for him at the Betty Ford Clinic. The judge would likely have wished him well in his recovery. It would've taken an act of God or else an act of monumental stupidity on his own part for George Junior to have ever seen the inside of an American prison for drug possession. But now he's running for president. And the questions keep coming. And his answers keep changing. And try as he might to create a statute of limitations for questions about his personal life, there is no such statute for hypocrisy. Sending people to prison, increasing their sentences by the stroke of his pen for the very behavior that he now claims is irrelevant in his own history, does not speak well for the honor or the conscience of the man. George W. Bush Jr. has a cocaine problem. But he's got a big lead in the polls, and more than thirty million dollars in the bank. He'll suffer an awful long time before he hits bottom. Right now, pathetic as it is to watch, his evasive machinations in the face of confrontation can only mean one thing. He's still in denial.Adam J. Smith, Associate Director, ajsmith drcnet.org Click the link to read all of DRC Net's Weekly Update News:The Week Online with DRCNet Issue #104, 8/20/99 http://www.drcnet.org/wol/104.htmlThe Week Online with DRCNet Issue #103, 8/13/99 http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread2471.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by FoM on August 20, 1999 at 15:21:08 PT:
Letters From Peter McWilliams
The letter to the LA TIMES:http://www.latimes.com/RE: Gov. Bush Denies Illegal Drug Use in Last 25 Years.Yet again we see hypocrisy of the War on Drugs. I smoke medical marijuana to treat my AIDS and the federal government charges me with violations of drug laws that carry a mandatory 10-year minimum sentence. Even though the Drug War has reached into sickrooms to keep its arrest quota high, politicians continue the litany, "We must get tougher on drugs!"When one of their own, however, all but admits to breaking the same set of drug laws (they've been in place since 1970, and Bush's "experimentation" lasted until 1974), what do we hear? Elizabeth Dole said, "That's his personal life." Drug warrior Sen. John McCain of Arizona "would allow the governor privacy on this issue."Where is the sanctity of my "personal life"? Why is my "privacy on this issue" being invaded? The 1.5 million people we spend $50 billion each year to arrest on drug charges can ask the same question. Your article quoted a poll: "72% said a candidate should be forgiven" for a drug indiscretion. Should we not apply the same forgiveness to the 400,000 Americans behind bars for drug offenses?Sincerely,Peter McWilliamsThis is my letter to the NY Times:http://www.nytimes.com/The Sins of the FatherThroughout his political career, George (no-W) Bush has been a vigorous supporter of punishing Americans who choose to use certain drugs. Remember when, as Commander in Chief of the War on Drugs, he held up a bag of cocaine during a prime-time televised speech from the Oval Office? Bush the elder was shocked--shocked!--that is insidious drug had been purchased in front of the White House. During his four years in office, 6 million Americans were arrested on drug charges. Some are among the 400,000 currently in prison for violating drug laws Bush signed into law.What a bittersweet irony, then, for those of us whose lives have been ruined by a drug arrest to see the sins of the father visited upon the son. George W. seemed a shoo-in for the nomination and the odds-on favorite for the Presidency. Now all of that is in doubt because his father's "zero-tolerance" drug policy kept Bush the younger from simply saying, "Sure I used cocaine. So what?"Al Gore must be pleased. Not only would he win a landslide victory against,say, Malcolm Forbes' son, he was also able to successfully cover-up the 1994 scandal involving Albert Gore III's sale of marijuana at his private school.
Peter McWilliam's Home Page
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Ally on August 20, 1999 at 11:46:06 PT
He's a hypocrite, I think that says enough...
It doesn't have a thing to dow ith where my issues are on cocaine...He is running for prsident not me!...I bet they never leave him alone!--Shalom,Ally
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by R.earing on August 20, 1999 at 09:50:34 PT:
Jr.
I don't like Jr..I don't like Republicans in general.I don't like hypocrites.I don't like cocaine. All that said, get the hell off his back! It has no bearing on whether he is competent now.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on August 20, 1999 at 09:49:30 PT:
Related Article
Running All Round My Brain Jon CarrollFriday, August 20, 1999http://www.sfgate.com/ ©1999 San Francisco Chronicle LET US POSTULATE, for purposes of argument, that George W. Bush, governor of Texas and current candidate for president, used cocaine when he was a younger man. Let us say that he used a lot of cocaine. Let us say he snorted it like a madman and got really wired and had about 19 beers to calm down and then went out looking for women and, oh yes, finding them. This is not admirable behavior, but it seems unlikely that he thought it was. For wealthy young men with a sense of entitlement, it is commonplace behavior. You may view this with sorrow and anger, but you are not surprised. Somewhat later, George W. Bush decided to put away childish things. This too is commonplace. He realized that if he kept using cocaine he'd have just one nostril and the television cameras would not be kind. You don't want to give the State of the State address with a big hole in the middle of your face. That's how rumors start. Trouble is, cocaine is such a sociable drug. It makes you want to talk to other people for a very long time about any damn thing and chatter and say I know we'll all go to France yes France let's call the airlines anyone have a beer or Italy! So there are lots of people willing to say they saw George W. Bush use cocaine. Let's just use that as a hypothetical. So what does Bush do? When asked about cocaine use in the dear dead days of his youth, he refuses to comment. He can't deny, because he's got half of Dallas waiting to contradict him, and he can't confirm, because then there will be follow-up questions without end, and the next thing you know he'll be listing every occasion, every amount, every companion, every other drug and halfway through he'll think, Italy was not such a bad idea after all. AND HERE'S MY problem: Lots of people with impeccable liberal credentials and darned fine voting records are beginning to wax all outraged about Bush's refusal to comment. As though, realistically, he had a choice. I thought we went all through that. I thought we decided that politicians were human beings and that human beings had flaws and made errors, and that pretending otherwise did intellectual violence to the entire electoral process. Lincoln and his clinical depression, Churchill and his drinking problem, Roosevelt and his mistress -- we did that gavotte. The conclusions that were reached are still true. Just because it's some dopey Republican mugwump now doesn't make the situation any different. BUT, YOU SAY: hypocrisy. Well, no. If he were still hurling white powder up his nose while preaching against drug abuse, that would be hypocrisy. But human beings are allowed to change. They are allowed to see the error of their ways and even condemn practices in which they formerly indulged. We get to reinvent ourselves. We ask forgiveness of those we have wronged, and we move on. Because we all have made mistakes, and we all have asked forgiveness. Only the most ruthless and cynical people try to pretend that process is not both ordinary and admirable. It would be nice if Bush's former career as a hypothetical cocaine abuser would give him some compassion for those rotting in prison for selling rich boys like him the stuff they got high on, but compassion is not a necessary component of restitution. It would be useful if he spoke to recovery groups and said, ``I was once like you; you too can change,'' but it's not a requirement. The bad news is that elevating the political discourse has to start somewhere, and maybe it should start with us. We know that private behavior, particularly private behavior in previous decades, has little to do with ability to govern. We know that the continuing streak of American puritanism leaves misery and stupidity in its wake. So let's find another stick with which to beat the mealymouthed little twerp. I was shocked, yes shocked, to hear that a rich young man had used drugs. Casey Jones, you better watch your jrc sfgate.com ©1999 San Francisco Chronicle  Page C20 URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/cnews/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1999/08/20/DD15480.DTL 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by FoM on August 20, 1999 at 09:36:41 PT:
Related Article
Gov. Bush Ducks Drug Questions Federal Job Seekers Must AnswerBy Naftali Bendavid,Washington BureauChicago Tribunehttp://chicagotribune.com/August 20, 1999WASHINGTON If Texas Gov. George W. Bush were applying to work at the White House instead of seeking to run it, or if he were a Cabinet nominee instead of hoping to name the next Cabinet, he could not avoid answering detailed questions about possible past drug use as he is doing now.If Bush were applying to be an FBI agent, he would have to provide detailed information about any past drug use.If he walked into a Marine Corps recruiting office, he would be asked if he had ever used illegal drugs and rejected if he refused to answer.These are some of the paradoxes confronting Bush, echoing those that faced candidate Bill Clinton eight years ago. For many sensitive government positions, any history of drug use triggers alarms, especially if it involves a more hard-core drug than marijuana.But with Baby Boomers dominating the political stage, it is getting harder to find national figures who have no drug use in their past, and many voters no longer consider illegal drug use an automatic disqualifier.The hoopla over Bush's refusal to say he has never used cocaine has continued to grow this week. Bush has said repeatedly that he will not dignify malicious rumors nor reward dirty politics. But while making these assertions, he has begun declaring that he did not use drugs during certain long stretches of his life.Bush told the Dallas Morning News on Wednesday that he has not used drugs in the past seven years. Applicants for national security positions in the federal government are asked if they have used drugs during this period, so Bush said it was fair for him to answer the question too.On Thursday, Bush went a step further, saying he could have passed a background check going back to 15 years before his father took office in 1989. That means Bush has ruled out taking illegal drugs since 1974, when he was 28."I have told the people of this country that over two decades ago I made some mistakes," Bush said at a press conference in Roanoke, Va., where he made the latest announcement. "I have learned from those mistakes. Should I become the president, my pledge to the American people is that I will uphold the honor and dignity of the office to which I have been elected."The Bush campaign, when contacted, declined to elaborate.Background checks for many sensitive federal positions are more involved than simply ruling out drug use for seven or even 15 years.Anyone seeking a job on the White House staff, for example, must fill out a form outlining any illegal drug use back to age 18. This is a Clinton administration policy, but it also was in effect during Bush's father's tenure."Do not limit your response to these questions to the last seven years," the form instructs applicants. "List and explain if you have ever abused any legal/prescription drugs to the point of dependency. In addition, list any treatment for drug and/or alcohol abuse."The same requirement goes for potential presidential nominees who must undergo Senate confirmation, including for a wide range of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet positions.There are no hard-and-fast guidelines as to how much or what kind of drug use would eliminate these individuals from contention, said White House spokesman Barry Toiv. "Judgments are made on a case-by-case basis," he said.Would-be FBI agents must fill out a preliminary checklist that includes a series of "automatic disqualifiers." A candidate is disqualified, among other things, if he has used marijuana in the past three years, used it more than 15 times in his life, or used any other drug more than five times in his life."Oftentimes, applicants for jobs with the bureau are denied access because they don't tell the truth," said FBI spokesman Tron Brekke. "There is some leniency on experimental drug use, even for the agent position."Any job with the CIA, or any other position with access to classified information, is governed by a directive from the director of central intelligence that says any past drug use may be disqualifying. But it can be mitigated, the document says, if the drug use was "not recent," was "isolated or aberrational," and if the applicant shows "a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future."It's not just federal authorities who require job applicants to detail their drug history. If a police officer candidate admits to using cocaine or refuses to say, he or she would be disqualified in many places, including Chicago."Because of the tenor of the times, experimental drug use is not an automatic disqualifier, but many draw the line after marijuana," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. "Cocaine use would be a disqualifier in many instances."To some observers, Bush's reluctance to answer the cocaine question suggests that the questions that face many federal applicants and nominees are unfairly intrusive."He evidently believes that drug use as a young adult is not a disqualification for the highest office in the nation," said Eric Sterling, president of the Criminal Justice Policy Foundation, a liberal group. "If that's true, then a lot of people should be free to seek federal jobs who now feel constrained to do so."While government agencies are struggling to find sensible drug policies for the current era, a similar struggle is unfolding in a rougher way in the political arena. That is putting Bush in a tough position.Bush has acknowledged drinking alcohol to excess and acting irresponsibly as a young man. What matters, he has said, is what kind of person he is now and what kind of president he would make. He has dismissed the question about cocaine as destructive politics, but his refusal to answer it has led some to conclude that he must have tried the drug because it would be so easy to say he hadn't.The candidate didn't help his cause by declaring that he has always been faithful to his wife. That has given journalists and opponents an opening to ask why he will not make a similar flat denial regarding drug use.Others have tied the cocaine question to Bush's support, while Texas governor, of unusually severe state penalties for cocaine possession.Bush's complaints about the dogged questioning in some ways mirror those Clinton has voiced for years about persistent inquiries into his personal life.Clinton, like Bush, has said that the moment one question is answered satisfactorily, the press simply moves on to another one.Although Bush has made several strategic retreats in recent days--he has gone from not ruling out cocaine use at all to ruling it out for the past 25 years--he also has signaled his intention to retreat no further."I am going to tell people I made mistakes and that I have learned from my mistakes," Bush said Thursday."And if they like it, I hope they give me a chance. And if they don't like it, they can go find somebody else to vote for. That's the wonderful thing about democracy."Tribune intern Lauren Shepherd contributed to this report.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: