I agree with al Qaeda....

Give ir, Mace. The bitch is an alcoholic. It’s an easy call. 20 years of heavy daily use in the face of negative consequences shows “craving,” ipso facto. DUI busts and stuff like driving home blasted, dragging a trash can under his car, then challenging his dad to a fight shows loss of control. You don’t know that Bush did not go through withdrawal. I assume he did, but I wouldn’t expect him to advertize it.

By the way, the fact that he now doesn’t drink at all, shows an awareness of an inability to maintain moderate use. Plus his kids are drunks too. It’s genetic.

Why is it so important to you to think that Bush was a NON-alcoholic heavy daily drinker with consequences for 20 years?

It should be obvious why it’s important to me. :wink:

You were in the military. I grew up in a military family, and part of that life is cocktails in the evening-- every evening. I aw it all over the place. That’s just the way it was, 30 or 40 years ago. Bush could just as easily be a product of that environment. You are judging his behavior 30 years ago be the standards of today.

Where did you get the impression that diagnosing alcoholism is some kind of tricky, complex procedure? It’s not that much more difficult than being able to “diagnose” that somebody doesn’t have a leg.

If it was just youthful behavior, or college behavior or ANG behavior, it would be one thing. Continued heavy, daily use for 20 years is more than environmental. I knew people who drank heavily in the Navy and in college. they were young. It was the culture, but most of them grew out of it at some point. They were at least able to skip a day 10 or 15 years down the road. The few who continued with daily use were no question about it alcoholics. Tolerance, withdrawal, DTs, the whole bit.

I have an alcoholic parent, so maybe I’m a little sensitive about denials, but I went to enough AA and Al-Anon meeting to know that those alcoholics (and family members of alcoholics) would not have let Bush get away with denying his own problem.

Fair enough. Let’s go back to '97 and pretend this message board was around then. Let’s say Poster X, who has a long documented history of Clinton bashing, started a pit thread entitled:

"I agree with Pol Pot…"

And then described how Pol Pot had given an interview where he denounced President Clinton, calling him a sex addict.

How do you suppose rational people would have reacted? It is just such a bizarre, stupidly provocative thread that I cannot believe you hit the “submit thread” button.

Even if you had removed the ill-advised inclusion of the genocidal maniac from the OP, you’re STILL left with a ridiculous thread. Bush has an addictive personality; Clinton is a sex addict. Who cares? Either present a thread with merit or be prepared to have rocks thrown at you.

I wouldn’t have given a fuck. I probably would have agreed.

There has been more to my comments than than Bush is an addict. I think the terrorist raised an interesting question that hadn’t occurred to me before. Namely, whether Bush’s addiction was driving his reckless decisions in Iraq. All this pearl clutching over the thread title was an unintended consequence of a bad joke which I did not intend to be my central point.

Clinton was a sex addict?

And Pol Pot had a problem with that?

Since you’ve been slinging claims of logical fallacies against me, I’ll point that you are guilty of affirming the consequent here: If a person craves alcohol, he drinks it every day. Bush drank alcohol every day, therefore he craved alcohol. And that only addresses the first of the 4 symptoms-- you haven’t addressed any of the other 3 symptoms.

I drink coffee almost everyday. Am I a coffee addict? I never crave it, it’s just part of my morming routine. If I’m too busy to get a cup in the AM, I never even think about it.

Anyone who drinks it every day for 20 years must crave it on some level.

Hardly the same thing. You may have a mild dependency, but caffeine dependency isn’t really addiction. There’s a distinction between dependency and addiction. By your own admission, you can skip the coffee sometimes. Bush said he never skipped the alcohol, even when it was damaging his life.

If we’re going to be armchair psychologists, then I’d assert that his “Texan mentality” is driving his reckless behavior more than his “additive personality.” Of course, I’m not a terrorist nor would I do the Snoopy happy dance if President Bush were assassinated, so take my assertion with a grain of salt.

How about ten years? I drank it every day for about ten years and then stopped cold when I lived with my Mormon relatives for about a year.

Did you drink “heavily” for ten years, as Bush says he did? Did it cause negative consequences in your life?

Can we have a quote that Bush claimed he “drank heavily” for 10 years? You keep switching from “drank daily” to “drank heavily” and I think you’re trying to imply that he drank heavily every day. Anyway, I’m suspicious that you’re quoting him accurately, so let’s see a primary source (and not some lefty blog).

A bit of goal post shifting, eh?

At any rate, I drank 1 - 2 six-packs a day. I never missed work, never got a DWI, never had a wreck … It was a pretty aimless period in my life, but it would be hard to argue one way or another if I drank because I was aimless or I was aimless because I drank. I really enjoyed it but had little or no trouble stopping. If I drank that much today it would be problem. Now I drink some and stop for a while when my weight gets up a bit.

I don’t frequent lefty blogs.

Here’s this from wiki:

Not at all. Negative consequences is a necessary criterion. Also “daily use” could mean as little as a glass of wine. Both questions are relevant.

Did you literally drink that much every day for all those years? Did you ever skip a day? Skip a week?

If you did, I’d have to lean toward saying you probably are an addict.

Dio,

One question: Looking at all this bullshit you’ve been posting concerning addiction, do you think this is at all what was meant by the al Qaeda murderer you originally cited?

Yes.

Just to clarify this before you get defensive, what I really think is that you may be exaggerating your frequency of use for effect. Somebody who literally drinks 6-12 beers every single day, without fail, for 10 years without being an alcoholic would be an exception rather than the rule.

Wow.