Posted on 02/27/2005 7:50:54 AM PST by rface
No reporter ever asked the Texas governor why all those other people deserved to serve five or 10 or 20 years in prison, when their crimes were no different from what everyone knew he had done, whether he admitted it or not.....Joe Conason wonders why the president is punishing drug users for offences he has also been linked to.
On the audiotapes of George W. Bush recorded secretly by his erstwhile confidant Douglas Wead in 1999, the future president revealed how much he feared candid discussion of his personal use of marijuana and cocaine. As quoted in The New York Times, Bush vowed that no matter what rumours and facts circulated about what he did or might have done, he would doggedly decline to answer forthrightly.
His natural urge to protect his privacy evokes sympathy, however quaint his expectations might be at this point in our political history. But in justifying his refusal to talk about his foolish youth, he appealed to a higher purpose. "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions," he told Wead. "You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
For many American parents of a certain age, that self-serving yet poignant response must strike an empathetic chord. Concern that children will mimic parental misbehaviour is universal, and so is the impulse to conceal embarrassing truths. Bush rightly worries that children imitate adult models in the belief that they, too, can escape the consequences.
When Bush uttered those words, he was in his second term as governor of Texas and on his way to the White House. After all, if he could drink too much, smoke those forbidden herbs and perhaps even snort illegal powders and nevertheless become a successful politician, then "some little kid" might reasonably assume he or she could sin likewise without undue risk.
Any such assumption would be terribly mistaken, of course, unless the kid happened to belong to a wealthy and well-connected family like the Bush clan.
Prisons and jails across America are crowded with non-violent drug offenders whose lives have been ruined and whose families have been damaged or destroyed by the same punitive legal system that never touched young "Georgie," except to issue him a drunk-driving summons.
The poor and the black are incarcerated for using pot and coke, while the rich and the white lie to their kids (and occasionally to the voters) about those same transgressions.
Certainly that was how the justice system worked when Bush and Wead had their candid chats. The Texas politician couldn't reassure his friend that he hadn't used cocaine, let alone marijuana, but as governor he was imprisoning young people unlucky enough to be arrested in possession of those narcotics, often for draconian mandatory-minimum sentences. He always cherished his image as a tough, swaggering, law-and-order politician who didn't hesitate to imprison teenagers. But that isn't what happens to people from good families.
His niece Noelle Bush went through a drug-rehab program and was released two years ago. His friend Rush Limbaugh went through rehab and has returned to berating the less fortunate on the radio, without doing one day of time.
The lopsided cruelty has only escalated since Bush entered the White House. Federal agents have cracked down on medical users of marijuana, depriving them of a substance that eases their sickness and keeps them alive.
The human and economic costs of the drug war continue to swell. So burdensome are those costs that many conservatives, including such Bush tutors as former secretary of state George Shultz, have publicly pleaded for saner policies.
Despite his claims to be a "compassionate conservative," Bush has ignored those pleas. He seems to feel that if he overcame his substance-abuse problem, then nobody else really has an excuse.
No reporter ever asked the Texas governor why all those other people deserved to serve five or 10 or 20 years in prison, when their crimes were no different from what everyone knew he had done, whether he admitted it or not.
No reporter will ask the president that question today, either, although it is just as pertinent in light of his revealing conversations with Wead.
Indeed, Bush not only avoided public responsibility for his own past mistakes but found a clever way to turn those wayward years to political advantage. He brandishes his late return to sobriety as a symbol of his Christian faith.
It is hard to tell what Bush learned in his recovery from sin, except that other people got caught and he didn't.
That would be enough to make anybody smirk.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Conason is the author of The Hunting of the President:The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton.
A USMC 'Outstanding' to you for your profile page, specifically the link to the Iwo/Suribachi flag-raising history page.
I heard he is a pedophile serial killer and has 40 bodies in his basement. Just a rumor, but whether he admits it or not, why should Conason go free while similar fiends like John Wayne Gacy got the death penalty?
I think most people will tell you that jails are less comfortable than prisons. Much less. I have been to a prison as part of a criminology class, but I have never had the priviledge of being a resident in one.
An obvious difference is that jails are usually for a relatively short period of time, so you can -- so to speak -- see the light at the end of the tunnel.
I met a fellow in a detox program who is now doing three years in county jail for something having to do with cocaine. He told me it was for his third use arrest, but I suspect there may have been some low level dealing going on that he neglected to mention. Three years seems to me like a lot for only use, even if it was his third arrest.
In any event, this is not a bad guy. He acted as a sort of a de facto counselor to the others in the detox program, and he worked his butt off cleaning and helping. He was a very constructive infuence on the others. I may be gullible, but I believe he sincerely wants to get away from drugs.
The effect of jailing him has been to wreck his marriage and ruin his career.
I do not se how those things will help him in any way. If anything, I think he will be more vulnerable to drugs and crime when he gets released. Six months rather than six days in the detox program would have been much better (and much cheaper).
Does Joe wonder why nobody ever asked Bill Clinton?
BTW, by my count, almost all the "minions" have been "heard" from, save Gene Lyons, in the trashing of George W. Bush.
One has to wonder why it's so important for them to try to destroy a "lame duck" president.
Bump to all that.
Joe, the clymer, probably did cocaine with Bill Clintoon and then Bill for years. That is why he is so upset. No more free coke and no more Bill in the White House.
"One has to wonder why it's so important for them to try to destroy a "lame duck" president."
because this lame duck president is going to name some new supreme court justices, and that's got the dems scared. not to mention messing with their social security. this president is the first in a long time in the position to actually DO things.
!!!
I think so, too. I still would not want to be in jail. Weren't you afraid of what might happen to you?
Bah, it's Joe Conason. He never let the truth get in the way of one of his columns before. Why would he start now?
Not really.
I was only in there overnight for a DUI. I was in a cabin built for six which was holding eight that night -- two on the floor. There wasn't much that anyone could do to anyone else, and the people were all nice.
I don't want to ever go back for that reason, but that is because I don't want to ever drive drunk again. The jail part was not really any big deal. Except for the food, I rather enjoyed it.
The sanitary facilities did leave something to be desired. There was a separate little room with a shower, a toilet, and a heavy steel door that was kept locked on some odd schedule that I never could figure out.
There was another toilet in a nook in the common room. With guys, that's okay for #1, but nobody ever used it for #2. Thankfully. TP was also in short supply.
The other problem was the noise. The steel door could not be closed quietly, and two of the drunks kept calling out for a f***ing cigarette. I gave up on any thought of sleeping.
But otherwise, it was very entertaining. If the food were better, I would go back voluntarily once a week or so. Not drunk, just to check in.
"No reporter ever asked the Texas governor why all those other people deserved to serve five or 10 or 20 years in prison, when their crimes were no different from what everyone knew he had done, whether he admitted it or not."
Ok, Conason.....either you are stupid, or you are the worst liar in Toronto. Nobody goes to jail for 20 years unless they were big time drug dealers, and it could be shown they killed people. Call Clinton. He can teach you how to lie proficiently.
There never has been a war on drugs, anymore than a war on illegal immigration....pick one, pick both.....all a sham.
This is so stupid. Anyone who holds this against Bush is narrowminded. All the 'reborn' Christians I ever knew became so... mostly because they hit rock bottom.....they abused sex,drugs etc. No ones perfect.
The other thing is...
The people who run the local detox program are almost all (perhaps all) people who have had substance abuse problems themselves. You do not need to explain anything to them or make any excuses to them. BS does you no good.
This is in contrast to most of the professionals I have dealt with about my alcohol problem.
After graduation from the detox program, I started seeing a psychiatrist. She was a complete waste of time. I probably spent $5000 on her. She knew the terms, but she was useless.
This was not true of the detox program.
The thing is, you cannot get cured of a problem in a week. I stayed clean for several months, but then something trivial went wrong and I was back in the bag that afternoon.
Addictions are vicious things. Monsters.
And we're to believe you because?! I don't believe a word of your accusation. Please verify with sources and dates as well as links. Thanks.
Oh, man! You have to get out more! There must be something else you can find to do for entertainment.
It's an oldie but goodie that the anti-freepers love to drag out and throw in my face every chance they get. Here's an earlier reply to the same question:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1105167/posts#10
To: journey7873
Guilty as charged. It was a sarcastic reply to an absurd Wall Street Journal op ed piece that was promoting the idea that it doesn't matter if US presidents are illegal drug users. Naturally, I objected.
10 posted on 03/25/2004 2:13:48 PM PST by Jim Robinson (warning: some parts of this post may be plagiarized - some parts may be sarcasm - no parts edible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
If I remember correctly, the liberal press was going after candidate Dubya at the time, trying to smear him as a drug user. A conservative commentator ran an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal saying that it really wouldn't matter to the voters if Bush snorted coke in his youth. I mean after Bill Clinton who cares?
She was being sarcastic of course and was really pointing out the hypocrisy of the Democrat press, but it ticked me off all the same. So I just as sarcastically and absurdly blasted away at her and the so-called "conservative" Wall Street Journal editorial page.
The anti-freepers love to trot this ditty out and post it out of context.
It's true that I was adamantly opposed to GWB becoming our Republican nominee at the time, didn't think it was a good idea to concentrate so much power in the hands of a single family or political organization. Also doubted he was all that conservative. But my post was a sarcastic response to the op-ed piece and not an attack on GWB himself.
Later, after Bush won the nomination, I decided to back him all the way. What choice did I have? It was either the admittedly "compassionate" conservative GWB or the demonstrably marxist fruitcake, Al Gore. Only one of these two gentlemen would be elected to the presidency and I wanted no part of helping it to be Al Gore. The rest, as they say, is history.
I believe I did the right thing and made the proper choices. In fact, after 9/11 I thank God every day that Bush is our president and not Gore. And when it came down to supporting Bush over Kerry (or any other of the nine dwarfs for that matter), I again backed Bush 100% for all of the same reasons. And when it comes to supporing a Republican over Hillary Clinton for president in '08, I'll again be supporting the Republican.
The anti-freepers just can't see my reasoning here. They love to accuse me of selling out and or being on "Rove's payroll."
Nope. FR is funded solely through donations from our participants and readers. And grahm_crackers knows this very well. He was a FAB member under his previous screen name and for awhile headed up the fundraising committee.
And our mission is the same as it's always been. To fight for conservative causes, root out government corruption and fight for a return to constitutional government. I believe that the judges appointed by Bush will help us in all of our long term goals. I also support Bush 100% in the battle against terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.