Respectable British Editorial Declares G.W. Bush Not Drunk Enough

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**WarOne**

Well, I can't believe three things here:

1. Bush has the capacity to write a book (or have someone write it for him [And yes, that will be the end of Bush-bashing for my thread here]).

2. I just read a British newspaper, unless the Telegraph is more a source of toilet paper and less a source of news (which would be interesting to see if people used the Telegraph online as a source of toilet paper...wouldn't your computer screen turn brown afterwards?).

3. THIS was the article I used to highlight G.W. Bush wrote a book.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/harrymount/100048642/george-bush-was-an-american-drunk-he-wouldnt-have-qualified-for-british-alcoholic-status/

Reading extracts from George Bush’s memoirs, it struck me that, like a lot of Americans, he overstates the extremes of his alcohol consumption.

“I could easily have a beer or two, or a martini, before dinner, bourbons, B&Bs. I was a drinker,” he writes, “It became a love and, therefore, began to compete for my love with my wife and my daughters.”

Now, I’m not saying that’s not quite heavy consumption; just that it still seems pretty controlled. A few drinks before dinner and a few more during – particularly if they are spirits – is easily enough to cut the edge off the irritation built up during the day. But it’s hardly out of control, alcoholic behaviour.

Yes, Bush did get convicted for drink-driving in 1976, when he was 30. But, all through his 30s, before he gave up drinking aged 40, he was holding down a responsible job as an oilman, and he even ran for office in Texas in 1978. Hardly the behaviour of the out-and-out drunk.

But then they have a different definition of these things in America. When Laura Bush confronted her husband with the fact that he hadn’t had a day without a drink in years, that is taken as a form of alcoholism.

Try using that line in France or Italy, where wine is taken as an intrinsic part of dinner, and you’d have to say that most of the adult population there were – by the American definition – alcoholics.

The British aren’t as sophisticated in their drinking as on the Continent; we’re more at the famine-or-feast end of the spectrum. We still drink less, in alcohol volume, each year, than the average Frenchman or Italian. But take a trip on a Saturday night to a provincial town centre – in particular the pedestrianised fighting areas you’ll usually find by the old market square – and you’ll see drinking that far outstrips Bush’s consumption at its highest.

Tony Blair seems to follow the American definition of alcoholism. In his memoirs, released earlier this autumn, he worried that his nightly half a bottle at dinner, with a stiffener before, was breaking into the outer limit of safe drinking.

I’m not at all advocating, in a laddish way, that either man should have drunk more. And I’m sure Bush is right in saying that he might well not have become President if he’d gone on drinking; going dry releases vast resources of energy, and time. It’s just that, neither man strikes me as an alcoholic in the real, dreadful, full definition of the word.

**KingCracker**

I just wanted to say that, I watched the movie W. and I dont know how true it all is, but it made me like Bush more as a person. Im sure that was the point, but it worked. Also my oldest brother has met/protected him 2 or 3 times when over seas, and he said George (thats what he wanted them to call him, not Mr. President) was a pretty funny/cool guy in person

**Albatross**

It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.

The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.

**WarOne**

Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.

The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.

I think you miss the bigger point here:

George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."

But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.

What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?

**Tyyr**

Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard, was Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. I'm not seeing writing a book as being way outside the man's capabilities.

**WarOne**

Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard, was Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. I'm not seeing writing a book as being way outside the man's capabilities.

Hey, he may or may not of written this book.

More likely, it is the work of a cabal of secret liberals who wish to discredit the greatest of real true blood Conservatives and cause them all to lose respectability with their peers.

Even more likely, it is aliens who are attempting to cause the future leader of the rebellion to become so paranoid about public perception of him that he goes into hiding and avoids any sense of leadership that would allow him to save the human race.

Super more likely, it is the evil mole people who wish to invade Texas, so they lure him away from Texas by writing an outlandish book by him and then publish it, informing him at the last moment he has to go on a book tour...through Antartica...in order to ensure a good press release.

Yes...I get my deductive reasoning from this guy:

**KingCracker**

WarOne wrote:
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard, was Governor of Texas, and President of the United States. I'm not seeing writing a book as being way outside the man's capabilities.

Hey, he may or may not of written this book.

More likely, it is the work of a cabal of secret liberals who wish to discredit the greatest of real true blood Conservatives and cause them all to lose respectability with their peers.

Even more likely, it is aliens who are attempting to cause the future leader of the rebellion to become so paranoid about public perception of him that he goes into hiding and avoids any sense of leadership that would allow him to save the human race.

Super more likely, it is the evil mole people who wish to invade Texas, so they lure him away from Texas by writing an outlandish book by him and then publish it, informing him at the last moment he has to go on a book tour...through Antartica...in order to ensure a good press release.

Yes...I get my deductive reasoning from this guy:

Thats the funniest Glenn Beck picture Ive ever seen. Win

**Albatross**

WarOne wrote:
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.

The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.

I think you miss the bigger point here:

George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."

But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.

What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?

Ah, so Sir is looking for something a touch... stronger? Step right this way:

That was particularly great - 'Britain gave them refuge now all they want to do is repay us with death.'

This one is courtesy of those erudite chaps at The Daily Sport:

Aah... The British press. The broadsheets are much, much better though. The Times, in particular is excellent.

**reds8n**

The book was apparently written by one " Christopher Michel " a 28 year old former speech writer. Known as "junior bird man" apparently ....

No, me neither.

Oh, to head them off now... Mr. Bush himself said "This is going to come as quite a shock to people... that I can write a book, much less read one," so *puts on optimist hat* lets not just have this descend into "amusing" pictures and/or hurled insults please. there do appear to be some points of interest in the book already revealed.

**Howard A Treesong**

Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...

hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.

I've seen a bit of film of Bush making a speech when he was much younger, and he was fast and lucid, using big words and the lot, everything people take the piss out of him for now would not have been said. What the hell happened between these kinds of performances and those as the president when he would stutter and fumble and leave horrible pauses or make up words. It's like he was a different man, the infamous debate with John Kerry was dire. I can't say I liked many of his policies which I see as being backward in relation to things like environment, science and education without even talking about the wars abroad, but I can't understand the difference between what I've seen of his younger self and the one we are more acquainted with, was it a terrible case of the nerves or was there some other issue?

**WarOne**

reds8n wrote:so *puts on optimist hat* lets not just have this descend into "amusing" pictures and/or hurled insults please.

Can you give us several examples of "amusing" pictures?

**Tyyr**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...

hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.

And that has what to do with anything?

**mattyrm**

Hey the guy might be right! My American girlfriends mother sat me down and asked me if i had a "problem" (she really was serious) because a few days earlier i drank 20 cans of Budweiser (that stuff just doesnt get me pissed) and fell asleep naked on the couch downstairs.

I mean, that would just be taken as normal weekend hijinx in the UK right?

**reds8n**

For shame !

Weekday perhaps but not weekend.

*tip o the hat to Mr. WarOne as well

*

**Howard A Treesong**

Tyyr wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...

hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.

And that has what to do with anything?

You placed it alongside achievements like being governor of Texas and the President. I suggest that it's no great achievement, perhaps his attendance at Harvard would be more relevant in writing a book.

**Tyyr**

I placed it along side the others because it came to mind first and unless the military has radically changed their stance on fighter pilots they don't let idiots fly multimillion dollar supersonic jets. Yes, Harvard works too but in the end there's plenty of evidence the man more than intelligent enough to write a book. Hell, judging by the quality of a few books I've purchased lately I'm not even sure high school English is required to get a book published.

**djones520**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tyyr wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Tyyr wrote:Yeah, the guy flew fighter planes in the National Guard...

hardly a war hero, the irony is only created because of the way some people tried to smear John Kerry's military record during the 2004 elections.

And that has what to do with anything?

You placed it alongside achievements like being governor of Texas and the President. I suggest that it's no great achievement, perhaps his attendance at Harvard would be more relevant in writing a book.

He placed it not as an achievemant, but as to show his capabilities. They don't make idiots fighter pilots.

Bush never claimed to be a war hero, nor stood on his laurels as one, like Kerry did.

**sebster**

Stupidity was never Bush's problem. His problem was more a lack of curiosity, coupled with a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism.

It isn't that he was incapable of learning sensible fiscal policy, or couldn't grasp the complexities of foreign relations. He rejected the need to learn these things, and figured his 'common sense' answers were all he needed to know.

I predict a book equally lacking in a genuine search for answers.

djones520 wrote:He placed it not as an achievemant, but as to show his capabilities. They don't make idiots fighter pilots.

Bush never claimed to be a war hero, nor stood on his laurels as one, like Kerry did.

**djones520**

Your point in posting that picture? He arrived on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in an S-3 Viking. It was a combat aircraft, which means if you are in it, you are wearing a flight suit and all of the associated gear that comes with it.

Doesn't matter if your President, or joe bloe. You enter one of those aircraft that's taking off, your wearing that suit.

I'm assuming your trying to draw some point in that he's grandstanding as a pilot or something... but you're failing at it.

**Laughing Man**

And he arrived in a combat aircraft why...?

**sebster**

djones520 wrote:Your point in posting that picture? He arrived on board the USS Abraham Lincoln in an S-3 Viking. It was a combat aircraft, which means if you are in it, you are wearing a flight suit and all of the associated gear that comes with it.

Doesn't matter if your President, or joe bloe. You enter one of those aircraft that's taking off, your wearing that suit.

I'm assuming your trying to draw some point in that he's grandstanding as a pilot or something... but you're failing at it.

It was used as a major point of publicity for his presidency. The pictures were spread across the globe. There was an action figure released, for God's sake. Trying to pretendt Bush didn't play off of his former fighter pilot status is absurd.

**Cheesecat**

Albatross wrote:
WarOne wrote:
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.

The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.

I think you miss the bigger point here:

George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."

But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.

What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?

Ah, so Sir is looking for something a touch... stronger? Step right this way:

Do you have anymore pics of Lucy there?

**Frazzled**

Laughing Man wrote:And he arrived in a combat aircraft why...?

He was landing on an aircraft carrier.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Stupidity was never Bush's problem. His problem was more a lack of curiosity, coupled with a healthy dose of anti-intellectualism.
***You have absolutely nothing but your own rantings to base that on. What makes you qualified to comment?

It isn't that he was incapable of learning sensible fiscal policy, or couldn't grasp the complexities of foreign relations. He rejected the need to learn these things, and figured his 'common sense' answers were all he needed to know.
***So you're bashing his fiscal policy which is worse than any other politican how? How are those Aussie politicians in handling budgets again?
***Foreign policy-you're forgetting that small matter of a major attack. He managed to get more allies to support the US than Obama has. Europe loves Obama. Love is irrelevant.

**Wolfstan**

Cheesecat wrote:
Albatross wrote:
WarOne wrote:
Albatross wrote:It's a blog. I fail to see what the big deal is. Moreover, it's a blog in the culture section.

The Daily Telegraph is generally considered to be a respected news publication, yes.

I think you miss the bigger point here:

George W. Bush....wrote....a...."book."

But thanks for identifying a blog...in the cultural section....of an online newspaper. Or would it be a newsnet, or maybe a newscomputer...since it is not in paper form.

What would be considered a crappy newspaper/internet/computer inside the UK?

Ah, so Sir is looking for something a touch... stronger? Step right this way:

Do you have anymore pics of Lucy there?

Just Oogle your way over to Google and type in "Lucy Pinder" or if you want I have a PDF of an issue with her and the delightful Ms Marsh

**Tyyr**

Laughing Man wrote:And he arrived in a combat aircraft why...?

There aren't a lot of carrier qualified civilian aircraft.

**Kilkrazy**

Why land on an aircraft carrier?

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Why land on an aircraft carrier?

Waterskiing DUH! Carrier's pulling what, 30 knots? You can water ski at that speed for days.

**Kilkrazy**

Especially if it is nuclear powered.

Now it all makes sense!

**Frazzled**

Kilkrazy wrote:Especially if it is nuclear powered.

Now it all makes sense!

Exactly. Plus with support craft fastlining burgers and coke down to him, he could literally ski for a year. Whats the point of being President if you can't win the Guinness World Record for water skiing behind an aircraft carrier? Is that the kind of world you want to live in? Not me brother. Next thing you know you'lll have mods gettng reported for Fawke's Day references. Take that Taft!

**sebster**

Frazzled wrote:***You have absolutely nothing but your own rantings to base that on. What makes you qualified to comment?

Umm, really? You're free to make the argument that he was an intellectual president rather than a man driven by instinct. You might be alone in that, though.

***So you're bashing his fiscal policy which is worse than any other politican how? How are those Aussie politicians in handling budgets again?

To be fair to you guys, who are going through a pretty poor time economically, I'm happy to look at pre-financial crisis government debt levels, so maybe 2007? The US governemt debt at that time was around 65% of GDP, whereas Australia has among the lowest government debt to GDP in the developed world, coming in at a tick under 2% in 2007.

So it's probably fair to say we're handling it very well, and you're handling it very poorly. So what's your point?

***Foreign policy-you're forgetting that small matter of a major attack. He managed to get more allies to support the US than Obama has. Europe loves Obama. Love is irrelevant.

Are you going to argue that Bush's policies were a foreign policy triumph? I wish you good luck with that effort, and am interested to see how you try.