Welcome Guest
( Log In | Register )
The time is now 12:57 am
You last visited August 21, 2017, 12:35 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Bush Says Faith Helped Him Beat Drinking


Bush Says Faith Helped Him Beat Drinking

Published: 1/29/08, 2:05 PM EDT

BALTIMORE, Md. (AP) - President Bush on Tuesday referred to his former struggles with alcohol as an "addiction," a blunt characterization of his less disciplined adult days before a reliance on faith help him turn his life around.

"Addiction is hard to overcome," Bush said in speaking at a faith-based center that helps former prisoners get job training and other help.

"As you might remember, I drank too much at one time in my life," Bush said. "I understand faith-based programs. I understand that sometimes you can find the inspiration from a higher power to solve an addiction problem."

Increasingly, Bush has reflected in candid terms about his days of drinking. Last month, he told some young recovering addicts to stick with their fight against drugs and cited his own experiences with alcohol years ago. He said then that "addiction competes for your affection ... you fall in love with alcohol."

Bush, 61, decided to quit drinking alcohol after a boozy night in 1986 celebrating his 40th birthday. He went on to win election and re-election as Texas governor before bidding for the White House.

The president spoke Tuesday at the Jericho Program, which helps former prisoners get their lives in order and contribute to society. The stop came as Bush sought to keep some attention on his faith-based programs, one of the themes from his final State of the Union address on Monday night.

     Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Entry #105


justxploringComment by justxploring - January 29, 2008, 3:37 pm
Just curious, Tenaj, why you posted this, since your past comments indicate you don't like President Bush. There is nothing negative here at all, is there?   This is one thing I agree with him on, although I never drank much. Just lucky, I guess, since I get slammered after 1 drink, so it's no fun anyway.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 29, 2008, 5:28 pm
Think about it Justx. Just thing about it.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 29, 2008, 6:56 pm
You mean this? :-)

TenajComment by Tenaj - January 29, 2008, 7:37 pm
Exactly.LOL We have a president with a drinking problem. He always want a drink. Just listening to him talk you can see his disfunction.

Remember beating alcohol is a life long commitment and you can backside in and out of it and you are always recovering from alcohol.

I know from experience even with myself there's lots of stuff I can give some damn good advice about but is not able to (or don't) do it myself.

Our country is being lead by a recovering alcoholic. America has suffered from it too. Just think about all the times Bush have just totally ignored advice and did as he pleased.   Remember when you want a drink you have to replace it with something. The fool is playing GI Joe with our country and have just totally destroyed America and have placed undue hardships on it's citizens. Don't get me going on that fool.
konaneComment by konane - January 29, 2008, 8:17 pm
What about the sex addict in office before Bush who could possibly be the new "First Lady?" Addiction is addiction one not much worse than the other and all because someone is trying to reach for a better feeling inside themselves. My father was alcoholic so know they can stop and stay stopped without backsliding when they're fully committed to doing so.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 29, 2008, 8:39 pm
Konane, Bill Clinton is not a sex addict. Maybe you need to do some research on sex addiction. We've had several presidents to be exposed for what Bill did. But they were not the product of a witch hunt.

If it hadn't been exposed George W. would have gotten several Lewinsikys too like most men in power.    You can't compare an alcoholic president to a president who got caught getting his freak on. Don't be naive.
konaneComment by konane - January 29, 2008, 8:49 pm
From accusations of groping to outright rape then the accusers saying they were harrased about coming forward ..... he had his freak on big time from before he stepped in office until the last news report of his latest girlfriend.
I wasn't referring to only one enamored intern in a blue dress.

Sounds like he reached for that good feeling lots of times. Had the press been lest favorably disposed to Clinton lots more would have been published about his chasing every skirt that came in view.

Only problem is if Hillary can't control Bill she sure can't control a nation.
justxploringComment by justxploring - January 29, 2008, 9:05 pm
I agree with both of you. I'm not a Bush supporter, but I also don't think because someone is in recovery, he can't do a good job running the country. The wealthiest man I've ever known was a self-made multi-millionaire in the 80s and he put himself in a rehab hospital. As they say, he grew up so poor that he couldn't afford to pay attention. :-)   and then went on to build a huge real estate & development corporation. People change. I wasn't impressed with the State of the Union address, since it just reminded me of his failures, but I really liked this speech at the Jericho Program.

I do want to add one thing however. Which would you rather have? Let's say we have 2 addicts in office and both of the aren't honest with the American people. 1 lies about some sexual affairs and the other lies about WMDs and sends more than 3,000 men & women to their death. Mission accomplished? Hmm.
konaneComment by konane - January 29, 2008, 9:14 pm
Israeli intelligence (believe they're called the Mossad) tracked the WMD's as they were being trucked to Syria and the Baqua (sp) valley in Lebanon. Lie, I doubt it because they have the best intelligence in the world or Israel would be krispy kritters in the korner right now. I certainly believe them over our lying agenda driven press.
konaneComment by konane - January 29, 2008, 9:16 pm
Debka.com is where I read about the WMD's if memory serves me.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 29, 2008, 9:42 pm
Konane, this blog is about Bush's alcoholism - our President - and whether it affects the American people - not about the Clintons.

I disagee with you Justx. Someone with an alcohol problem is not qualified to run this country. Too much at stake. Can you imagine the formal events Bush attended where alcohol was present. We can't have alcohol - our President is in recovery. Come on.

People with addictions see the images that pull at them in mila seconds that we know nothing about -even when they are considered recovered. How they deal with it comes in all forms. The drug and alcohol addicts have told us this out of them own mouths.

That dude you are talking about Justx- focused on himself, he was not president of the United States. Being President is way way way way way more responsibility and way too many other people lives are at stake and how the world looks at us as well.
ToddComment by Todd - January 30, 2008, 12:03 am
Guess you don't want Obama to win either then, because he was strung out on drugs for a long time growing up. He wrote about it in his book. Let's see how intellectually honest you are. Or is it going to be, "he wasn't really *addicted* to drugs" or "it's different" or some excuse like that?

As for the lies, the "Bush lied" crowd is in fact themselves lying to themselves and lying to others. To turn a serious discussion about a complicated situation into "he lied" reflects poorly upon the person making the claim and demonstrates a lack of deep thinking. Also, the ability of the same people to dismiss Bill Clinton's pathologic lying and deception -- not just about his sexual addiction and multitude of affairs, but laced into practically every aspect of his Presidency -- again speaks to the weakness of the accuser's claims.

Like it or not, when you or anyone else makes an attack on Bush, it is entirely fair and logical to immediately ask about your feelings about a similar situation with Bush's predecessor. Doing so is a good way to evaluate if the claims are based on principles or if you are just making another Bush-hating remark. (In the case of the latter, the claim/point becomes unworthy of serious discussion.)

As for the ability to run a country, Bush did a pretty good job. A little too socially liberal for my tastes, but the 2 judges he appointed to the Supreme Court were excellent choices, and that's one of the most critical roles of any President. (He did make a terrible choice with Harriet Miers, but then made a great decision when he changed his mind.)

President Bush guided this country through some very tough times. He made some mistakes, like all Presidents do, but overall he has been a good steward. He seems to be a genuinely good person who cares about other people. He is not the devil that is being characterized by venomous, agenda-driven attackers.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 30, 2008, 12:52 am
What? That figures about Obama. I knew of Obama in Chicago years ago. Didn't like him then and don't like him now.   He doesn't qualify to run this country either. Way way way way way under qualified. He's a WTF to me.

Surprised aren't you.

The POLLS indicates that Bush has done a terrible job with this country. Over and Over. Are you arguing with the majority. As far as the Clintons, this blog is about Bush and his drinking problem, not Bill. And yes George W is indeed the devil incarnate. Greater than half of America and people all of the world feel the same way I do about that evil little man.
ToddComment by Todd - January 30, 2008, 3:33 pm
As a liberal, you're not supposed to believe in good and evil. After all, if you felt that a person who lies all the time is "evil", then Bill and Hillary Clinton would be the very definition of evil. Or are you forgetting that Clinton was impeached for lying? And that Hillary lied about her involvement in the travel office firings, and was close to being brought up on charges herself? (That was one of her famous lies, but certainly not the only or biggest of them.)

I think the polls you're referring to are the same ones that on election day had Al Gore winning in 1999, and had John Kerry winning on election day in 2003 (by a veritable landslide).

No, polls cooked up with loaded questions do not move me. Such as the polls that ask, "Would you like to see the troops out of Iraq today?" I, together with most of the country, would answer "yes" to that question. But the real *truthful* question should be, "Would you support removing the troops from Iraq before the country is stabilized?" I don't think you'd have your majority then. In fact, it is YOU who would be in the minority then. Just like it would be if fair questions were asked by a fair media.

Like I said, I am not moved by your "polls". I am moved by truth, and there is little of that on display.
TenajComment by Tenaj - January 30, 2008, 4:57 pm
But the polls who thinks that Bush has done a horrible job as President are in the Majority.

You must be a Lottery Post member to post comments to a Blog.

Register for a FREE membership, or if you're already a member please Log In.