[FoRK] Bush the "Dry Drunk"

Joseph S. Barrera III joe at barrera.org
Thu Oct 14 16:01:58 PDT 2004

Alcohol/brain damage theory.

I admit I wouldn't bother forwarding this if I didn't hate Bush so 
fucking much.

- Joe


Dry Drunk
Is Bush making a cry for help?
by Alan Bisbort

Sept. 24, 2002 -- HARTFORD (APJP) -- Alcoholics Anonymous has a name for 
someone who is a drunk in every way except for the actual imbibing of 
spirits. They call that person a "dry drunk." This is not a judgmental 
term, nor should this be a judgmental topic in America, where there are, 
by even the most conservative estimates, 10 million adult alcoholics, 
and very few families that have not been touched, in one way or another, 
by this national scourge. This same scourge has, by his own admission, 
also touched the life of our Commander in Chief.

Whether George W. Bush is or was an alcoholic is not the point here. I 
am taking him at his word that he stopped what he termed "heavy 
drinking" in 1986, at age 40. The point here is that, based on Bush's 
recent behavior, he could very well be a "dry drunk." Of course, he may 
just be an immature bully who will gladly sacrifice thousands of lives 
to get his way even against the advice of the most respected and mature 
members of his own party.

Still, Bush's past battles with the bottle are worth pondering at a time 
like this, one of the most dangerous in the nation's history. When a 
recovering alcoholic begins to engage in what AA calls "stinking 
thinking," he or she begins to exhibit the old attitudes and pathologies 
of their drinking years. These include an increase in anxiety, mild 
tremors, mild depression, disturbed sleep patterns, inability to think 
clearly, craving for junk food, irritability, sudden bursts of anger and 
unpredictable mood swings. According to AA literature, "Boredom and 
listlessness may alternate with intense feelings of resentment against 
family and friends, and explosive outbursts of violence."

Bush said he was a "heavy drinker." But let's not be coy here. Anyone 
who has ever imbibed heavily over a long period of time knows that 
"heavy drinker" is the rich man's (or the politician's) code for alcoholic.

For the record, Bush claims to have stopped drinking for reasons that 
change each time he's asked about his substance-abusing past (which 
isn't often, thanks to a cowed press). Let's say he started 
experimenting with alcohol, as per the national norm, at 16 at prep 
school, and he began getting regularly wasted at Yale at 18. This would 
mean that Bush drank steadily "heavily" for at least 22 years. We are, 
then, asked to believe that he went cold turkey after more than two 
decades of heavy drinking, a nearly impossible feat even for someone, as 
he claims, who was rescued by God.

Far be it from me to cast stones when it comes to alcohol. I've seen the 
devastating toll alcoholism can take. My brother was an honors student 
in college, when he began drinking heavily (party drinking, as was the 
tradition at southern colleges back then). By the time he was in his 
mid-30s, real and dramatic changes had occurred in his metabolism and 
brain chemistry. Medical experts told me at the time that just 15 years 
of sustained drinking can do irreversible physical harm of this sort. In 
other words, even if my brother stopped drinking, the damage would 
remain done. But by most measuring sticks, my brother was a functioning 
member of society. He held jobs, paid his rent and bills, and he made 
heroic efforts to beat his cursed addiction. He climbed the 12 steps 
more times than Stallone climbed those steps in "Rocky."

Though I deeply loved my brother and miss him terribly now, I could not 
deny the damage, even in his long periods of sobriety, that alcohol did 
to him. Rather, I could not deny the damage, but I could not bear to 
watch it happen. I could feel it in my bones that he was up against 
something stronger than his will and his prodigious intellect. Stinking 
thinking, like kudzu, simply overtook his mind, and alcohol killed his body.

It is worth reflecting on George W. Bush's academic history. He 
graduated from two of the finest institutions of higher learning in this 
country: Yale and Harvard. He didn't make great grades, but he 
graduated, an accomplishment warranting some respect. Many rich, 
well-connected boys have flunked out. [NOTE from the editors: ...or 
tossed out, as was one Richard Scaife, from Yale, allegedly for his own 
love of the bottle.]

The question is then begged, and seems to at least deserve some pause 
for pondering: how did he, at age 58, get so fumble-tongued, incapable 
of stringing more than two coherent sentences together, snippily 
irritable with anyone who dares disagree with him or even ask a 
question, poutily turning his back on the democratically elected 
president of one of our most important allies because of something one 
of his underlings said about him (Germany's Schroder, of course), 
listlessly in need of constant vacations and rest, dangerously obsessed 
with only one thing (Iraq), to the exclusion of all other things 
(including an economy that is slowly sucking the life from the nation as 
! well as the retirement savings of anyone reading these words)?

Furthermore, why is Bush so eager to engage in violence and so incapable 
of explaining why?

For drunks to function for any length of time in the world, they need 
enablers. Congress is filling that bill splendidly right now for Bush. 
As BuzzFlash put it about the recent corporate scandals, "For most of 
his adult life, those people around him enabled Bush's alcoholism. Now 
the Democratic Senate is enabling the corporate corruption problem of 
his administration by not using their Constitutional powers to demand 
the truth."

Not only the Congress but the nation seems to be watching this happen. 
No. They are encouraging it to happen. Who knows, maybe we are all in 
shock, just as we are when a member of our family does something 
appalling or outrageous under alcohol's bidding. God knows, the crazy 
behavior by the administration is so wild and unprecedented, covering 
such frightening unknown territory up ahead that it may be easier to 
look away.

But we can't look away. George W. Bush needs an intervention. Let's be 
his interveners. Let's raise our sober voices. Let's ask questions, 
demand more than temper tantrums and pouting from the Commander in 
Chief. Let's do this before it's too late and a dry drunk's dream of 
glory becomes our national nightmare.

Alan Bisbort is a columnist for the Hartford Advocate. His more recent 
book is "Famous Last Words" (Pomegranate).

More information about the FoRK mailing list