Talk:George W. Bush substance abuse controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Marijuana use

The article currently has this down as rumoured/uncomfirmed but wasn't there a tape of a phone call he made released a while back (before the more recent election I believe) in which he talked about having taken it? I remember hearing the tape played on the Daily Show which is probably not the best source but it seems like it would warrant mention as it would take the allegations from 'rumoured' to 'confirmed'. MagicBez 13:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video

James, don't forget to add the video in which Bush was "drinking" at a wedding.--MONGO 07:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I assume you're being sarcastic. As I said on Talk:George W. Bush, I don't think the video merits inclusion. JamesMLane 04:14, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Nope, no sarcasm intended...don't you want to be authoritative? I think the video has just as little merit as the Wormer, Hatfield and Frank nonsense...they are all Junk science.--MONGO 08:51, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
As I made clear on Talk:George W. Bush, I disagree. Statements by a biographer of Bush, a professor who's published a book on addiction, and a professor of psychiatry are notable. The anonymous blogger who wrote about the video is not. JamesMLane 19:07, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But the video itself, is. Floopy 30 June 2005 12:02 (UTC)

The video is proof. I removed the above a comment because it kept referencing not standing up to enemies and John Kerry and Bill Clinton, which have absoleutely nothing to do with the article. Plus, it was unsigned.

[edit] Does the National Enquirer article about resumed drinking really merit inclusion?

An argument could be made that the National Enquirer doesn't rise to the level of reliability called for in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I realize the article should strive for inclusion of all relevant information on this specific subject, but the National Enquirer? Though in reading the National Enquirer Wikipedia article, I notice some discussion that it should maybe receive more credit than it actually does. I also have my doubts about including a mention of the speculation by Capitol Hill Blue -- I've identified at least one specific case in the past where they presented a demonstrably misleading account of events in a criticism of Bush (see the end of my weblog posting at The smallness of George W. Bush, if interested). Anyway, I'm curious what people think. -- John Callender 06:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

The Enquirer article is, I think, significant given that more than any other paper it expects to be sued, and so tends to back itself up more thoroughly.
It could be nothing after all, but consider that stories and whispers that Bush has never really gone on the wagon have been bubbling around Washington for years now, and if the Enquirer feels confident enough to report them, it may go mainstream sooner than you think.
So I changed the hed of the section to include speculation. When you have a putative ex-alcoholic who's trying to quit without a support group, whether they really have is always a legitimate question.Daniel Case 03:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Next thing you know, the enquirer will tell us that Bush was caught getting off his spaceship with a bottle of Jack Daniels and his best friends Elvis and Bigfoot.--MONGO 19:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

This statement confuses tabloids that feature sensationalist but thorough reporting (such as the National Enquirer) with those supermarket tabloids that print usually more-dubious stories of a Fortean nature (such as the Weekly World News and The Sun). Just because the 'NE' prints things many people consider trivial, shallow, or blown out of proportion doesn't mean these things aren't factually true. Turly-burly 04:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't just pick and choose what is factual and what isn't. If the periodical has a reputation, as does the National Enquirer, of printing a lot of zany stuff, then there is no reason to take it seriously.--MONGO 09:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Printing "zany stuff" is fine if the "zany stuff" comes from reliable, documented sources. Just because some people think it's "zany" doesn't mean it's not accurate and/or professionally-researched. Please reinstate the 'NE' information pending further review. thanks Turly-burly 17:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Get real, eh...show me how the heck the nonsense that is in that article is reliably based on anything...cross reference it with numerous mainstream sources....outside of the commentary and opinion sections.--MONGO 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Mongo, if the fact that the story appeared in the National Enquirer makes it obvious to any rational person that it must be false, then there can be no harm in mentioning it here, since any reader will immediately know that it can't be trusted. If there _is_ the possibility that the story has merit, even if it appeared in the Enquirer, then you probably shouldn't just delete it out of hand. -- John Callender 07:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
John Callender, we are not a repository of useless information from known rag sources such as National Enquirer. I see no chance that the report is based on anything other than the typical scnadlous nonsense that NE is well known to produce...hence the numerous libel lawsuits over the years. Reference it from a respectable source and then it can stay.--MONGO 07:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but to assert a priori that anything published in the Enquirer is "useless information" and "scandalous nonsense" isn't really in keeping with the spirit of NPOV. See National Enquirer for a more neutral assessment of the publication. As the person who initially raised the question of whether the Enquirer was suitable for inclusion in the article, I can completely understand your reaction, but after investigating the question, I honestly think the passage qualifies for inclusion. This article is about the controversy regarding Bush's alleged substance abuse, and the National Enquirer article represents an important part of that controversy. I think it would be more appropriate for you to balance the passage with appropriate information about the Enquirer's reliability as a source, rather than just erasing the entire passage. I don't want to engage in a revert war, though, so I'll just state my case here, and see what other users think about the subject. In any event, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. --John Callender 17:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
The refutation of NE can be done in that article. It's lack of reliability of evidence is not generally questioned. We don't use unreliable witness to back a POV or to bolster a position...if anything it makes the argument that Bush is a drunk seem less credible not more so.--MONGO 18:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, again, if it makes the allegations seem less credible, rather than moreso, that's fine. If the information is included in the story, readers can reach their own conclusions about that. What you're doing, though, is to make that judgement on their behalf. For an article about this specific controversy, the fact that these allegations appeared in the Enquirer is a significant piece of information, and a reader trying to research the issue should have access to a neutral presentation of that information here. --John Callender 19:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for inclusion of NE: 1) The fact that the NE is mentioned/quoted in the "rumors and speculation" section alerts the reader to the fact that information is unverifiable (hence "speculation" or "rumor"). No one is being misled into thinking that Wikipedia is treating NE as it would treat, say, the NYT. Presentation of rumor as rumor is encyclopedic; presentation of rumor as fact would not be. 2) The NE the NE actually took the time to state that it had inside sources; "Capitol Hill Blue" simply cited capitol hill rumors, which is equivalent to saying "We published this article because everyone's saying that something is true". In this article, the NE article is cited with publication information and a link; the information concerning why he delayed the physical, on the other hand, simply says "some have wondered", etc., all without citation. Alcohol's role in the pretzel incident and his mountain biking accidents is similarly supported by no factual evidence. Either this whole "rumor" section has to be changed/scrapped or the NE should remain a part of it on the basis that it, along with everything else, is being presented as "rumor and speculation" (hence this section's title). 3) Wikipedia itself says of the NE, "Despite the sensationalistic perception, the Enquirer is also well-regarded for its very thorough research; their stories are often proven correct in many cases." Isn't internally-inconsistent to define a publication as "well-regarded for its very thorough research" but for citation purposes treat it like it's a "rag"? If the NE article is wrong, it should be changed, too, instead of staying like it is while having every reference to it as a source purged from Wikipedia.

I reverted this article based on these three arguments. I think choosing to delete only the NE out of all the rumors mentioned is POV. Furthermore, I don't really think the AP goat story is "rumor"; it is documented fact, and thus should be moved elsewhere to avoid confusing the reader as to what Wikipedia means by "rumor". Turly-burly 02:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not regarded as a reliable reference base. If you can find evidence from a reliable reference medium, and especially if it can be cross referenced from numerous reliable references, then it would be notable.--MONGO 08:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Portions of this same topic were also to be found here: [1]--MONGO 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Right. Other people's opinions are why I posted the question there. I tried to keep it neutral so as not to politicize it (either by talking about Bush or bringing up an admin). I really don't understand why a source of rumor has to be a reliable source, but if that's what you and at least one other person thinks, then I guess it's fine. I think that if this article is going to be ruled by the dictum that "fact of a rumor's existence isn't fact", the "rumor" section should be significantly rewritten, but I'm not going to work on it because I don't want to finish and have it come to nothing because of enforced reversion to a preferred format. Turly-burly 10:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And I have no problem with that and I also have no more right to edit here than you do. I would support the inclusion of the material if it could be reliably referenced from more persuasive source, but if you think that National Enqurier is a relaible source, then there isn't much more I'm going to do to try and change your mond...I also don't think that we are a repository of innuendo or gossip...and IMHO that is what the NE link appears to be.--MONGO 10:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After giving it a rest for several days, and reading over the discussion again, I honestly think the material belongs in the article, and have re-instated it. MONGO, I don't think you've addressed the concerns raised by Turly-Burly about the ways in which the Enquirer differs from a "space aliens ate my baby!"-style tabloid. I consider the article significant evidence, if (certainly) not of the same caliber of evidence as an article in a mainstream news publication.

My view is that the article means there probably is someone who the Enquirer could reasonably believe to have been in a position to have witnessed the events described, and who, in return for a substantial payment, was willing to tell the Enquirer that they'd seen that happen. Again, as I said before, this article is about the controversy of allegations of Bush's substance abuse, including allegations of drinking relapses. The Enquirer article is one of the most high-profile allegations of such a relapse, and to exclude it from the article weakens it.

So far you haven't offered any reason for doing so other than your personal animus toward the publication, an animus you've illustrated with very strongly negative characterizations (not saying there's anything wrong with such characterizations on a Talk page, but they do provide evidence of your state of mind). While I don't question your good faith, I think you've let yourself slip into pushing a personal POV. Again, if you think the citation of the Enquirer article misrepresents the publication's journalistic significance, then why can't you add balancing information to identify for readers whatever it is you think might be misleading about the current language? --John Callender 15:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and revert my edit..I won't override that. Did you look at the link...did you look at it? Can you demostrate that the evidence has been collaborated by mainstream sources? I fail to see what the difference is between the National Enquirer and any of the rest of those magazines. This is not the place to refute the magazine itself...I question the lack of encyclopedic merit it has. I'm glad you don't question my good faith but still think I'm pushing a POV. Who was paid by the enquirer for the information...and do we trust the evidence of those that are paid off to disclose information? If this is the best the advocates can come up with to prove Bush is drinking again, then I say, you're right, let's leave it in there.--MONGO 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't read the Village Pump discussion until now. Thanks for pointing me to it. It's an interesting question. As I've said before, the two special circumstances that I think might apply in this case are 1) the National Enquirer is not the same thing as the overtly ridiculous tabloids. And 2) this article is specifically about a controversy, one in which mainstream-media evidence is scant. If you're not going to admit the Enquirer article as a valid data point in terms of the controversy, then what's the point of having this article at all?

You already basically answered that: You were active in the creation of this article because you wanted to keep this stuff out of the main Bush article. And I think that's a good call. But you can't have it both ways. If you want to have a place where the Bush-is-drinking conspiracy theorists can discuss that issue, then you need to actually let them discuss that issue in order for the strategy to work.

In the context of _this_ article, the Enquirer story is a significant fact. And it is a fact, in the sense that the Enquirer did publish the article. What the article's significance is, is another question, and I think it should very much be fair game for appropriate contextualizing -- say, by citation of relevant facts about the incidence of libel suits brought against the Enquirer and the outcome of those suits. Maybe the current National Enquirer article is too strong in its praise of the magazine. But say what you will, when a publication with a circulation of 4 million prints an eyewitness (albeit anonymous) claim that Bush was drinking, I think that rises to the standard of qualifying for inclusion in this particular article.

I already reverted this article once today, and don't want to violate my personal 1RR. Maybe I'll put the Enquirer passage back later, if no one else has. I don't think the world will stop turning if I let it go for a bit in the meantime.

Thanks again for your efforts on behalf of the article. I really do appreciate it. --John Callender 07:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Drank every day"? - What's the source?

-- "he couldn't remember a day when he hadn't had a drink" --

What's the source for this? It's contradicted by Bush's statement in a Washington Post interview [2] - "sometimes I would go to a party and drink too much. No, I would not drink too much on a daily basis. I never drank during the day." - 18 November 2005

Fortunate Son, J.D. Hatfield, cited in article. There's a difference between having a drink every day, and drinking too much every day. Gzuckier 17:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the cite info. The cite isn't clear to me in the article, and I think that other users may have the same problem (The Nicholas Kristof NYT reference comes immediately before the quote in question and obfuscates the correct source). Do you see any way to clarify this in the article? -- Also, re "a drink every day" vs "drinking too much every day": No debate from me on this distinction. - 21 November 2005
Hokay.Gzuckier 15:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPOV flag?

I think the article as it currently stands might qualify for removal of the NPOV tag. If others disagree, I'd be curious what specific aspects of the article they believe warrants maintaining the tag.

I recognize that for some people, the article's subject matter itself would be viewed as grounds for an NPOV warning, regardless of how neutral and carefully sourced the discussion was. For myself, though, I'd argue that if the article deserves to be in Wikipedia, and is handled with appropriately in terms of avoiding POV, it shouldn't get the warning flag. If it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, there's a different process that should be followed to request its deletion, and slapping an NPOV warning on it would not, in my view, be an acceptable alternative.

But I also recognize that there could well be aspects of the article as currently written that people will have valid objections to from a POV standpoint. I'm just looking to find out what those aspects are. Thanks. --John Callender 20:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No one's objected in 6 days, so I'm going to go ahead and remove the disputed tag. If someone wants to put it back, feel free, but I'd appreciate it if you could explain what parts of the article you find problematic if you do so. Thanks. -- John Callender 09:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote about the entire administration being alcoholics is obviously a very POV joke and ought to be removed. --The Yar 15:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] fermented goat's milk story location

While I agree that the fermented goat's milk story is worth including, Turlington's recent move of it out of the "rumors" section seems problematic to me. I understand the point (that it's not a rumor), but it seemed to me to make more sense where it was, while it sort of stands out as a non sequitur in its current location. Just a personal reaction; I'm not changing it. But I'm curious what others think. -- John Callender 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it looks out-of-place, and while it sounded better in the Rumors section (I think due to its bizarre nature), it still looked "tacked on" there. Does the goat story fit at all? Does every documented drink that George W. Bush has ever taken really belong in the article? Especially this particular drink. I highly doubt that he fell off the wagon as the result of ceremonial fermented goat milk consumption (although it's entirely possible), and I certainly don't think such ceremonial drinking is indicative of "continued substance abuse", e.g. if he were to receive Christian Communion wine, would we expect to find the instance mentioned here as proof that he's still an alcoholic? Turly-burly 23:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. I know the goat's-milk story was discussed a little bit in the anti-Bush weblogger community as being significant in light of his statements that he did not drink anything alcoholic anymore, and I guess I'd be of the position that it's relevant for this article on those grounds -- that it figured into a public discussion of the allegations of his substance abuse. But it seems kind of borderline even to me, and (obviously) I pretty much bend over backwards in the direction of inclusion, as the discussion of the National Enquirer article here shows. So whatever; I wouldn't fight it if someone wanted to take it out. But overall I think the article is stronger with it in, if only to let readers get a clear idea of what sort of evidence is being advanced in favor of the "Bush is drinking" position.--John Callender 00:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a link or two to blogs that discussed the significance to this, they can be sided along side it and it can be moved back to "rumors and speculation" with an added caveat that "some have believed this goat milk thing means...". I couldn't find anything about it, but it doesn't help that so many people (for whatever reasons) use the words "goat", "milk", and "George W. Bush" on their pages! Turly-burly 15:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Best I could do on short notice is this, with a bunch of entries from Daily Kos diarists: bush's alcoholism. I'll try to dig up some more when I have a minute. --John Callender 15:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Howdy...please don't rely on blogs to reference information. They are just opinion zones and I'm sure you know that. When in Rome, do as the Romans do...perhaps Bush was mandated to drink Goat's milk so as not to insult those he had gone to visit...let's not get carried away taking things out of context just to build a case.--MONGO 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
To help determine if the goat milk story merits inclusion as the factual basis for someone's speculation, I was wondering if anyone knew where the speculation took place. No one is trying to "build a case" for anything, I think; as for me, I want to figure out where the goat milk information fits in this article. Does it belong in "facts about drinking" (where it is now, and where it sounds awkward), does it belong in "speculation" (along with a mention that though it is fact, it was the reason for someone's speculation), or does it not belong (just as taking Communion probably wouldn't belong)? Turly-burly 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Of Interest: GWB and Mad Dog

I saw on The Late Show with David Letterman tonight a clip in their segment "George Bush...WHAT?!". George Bush was shaking hands with and introducing a large African-American man as "Mad Dog!" The clip showed GWB saying something like, "Mad Dog! My body is what it is today because of Mad Dog!" Perhaps a fun double entendre on the president's part, a winking reference to his (former?) love of drinking. (For those who don't know, "Mad Dog" is a street name for MD 20/20, a fortified wine) Turly-burly 14:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a question

With all this evidence and Bush's own admissions, how is this a controversy? The page should simply state "George W. Bush Substance Abuse," or possibly "George W. Bush Substance Abuse History." Who else is with me in removing the term controversy?

TheKurgan 17:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clearly still a controversy, since views about Bush in general are so polarized. It certainly contains elements that are disputed by the pro- and anti-Bush camps (rumors of continued drinking, for example). Having "controversy" in the title is problematic in some ways; maybe "allegations" would work better. But for me, I think the current title is probably the best we're going to do for now. -- John Callender 23:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think since Bush has admitted to the use of controlled substances the article have Contraversy removed, but Bush supporters, like many of the ones here, are against anything being shown, even if it is the truth, that hurts Bush. I would be okay with it, but it would invoke a lot contraversy. Stop Me Now! 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm sorry, I don't get it

is it possible to have at least one article without the word alleged showing up every 2 sentences?! Since he's actually admitted to all of this, do we really need this to be written so.. paranoidally? I mean the intro reads "The alleged abuse of alleged substances allegely confessed by the alleged president of the united states, commonly alleged by enemies of freedom, the liberal media, and people who hate kittens" Tone down the paranoia just a bit, please--205.188.117.73 17:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't admitted to recent drinking, and hasn't specifically acknowledged some of the detailed drug-abuse accusations, so I think that would have to stay "alleged" to be accurate. And the term only appears once in the current lead, which I think is fine.
If you were just going for hyperbole-based humor, my apologies for being too literal-minded. -- John Callender 00:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Spider angiomas" paragraph

I did some looking, and couldn't find anything credible describing Bush's 2001 medical procedure to remove facial skin lesions as involving "spider angiomas." The best I was able to come up with was Dr. Zebra's President George W. Bush: Health and Medical History page. It's pretty informal, but also fairly thorough, and by someone who claims to be a doctor. He describes the procedures in 2001 as probably involving "pre-cancerous sun-induced skin lesions." Once you take out that part, the whole paragraph becomes pretty suspect, so I figured it was best to just lose it. Those with dissenting views are encouraged to discuss. --John Callender 07:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not Enough Sources

There is a serious lack of sources for such a controversial issue. Many of the "facts" on this page seem to stem more from a hatred of George Bush, then serious facts.

Rather than just adding a drive-by POV template, would you be willing to also give some specific ideas for how the article could be improved to the point where you would think it no longer required the POV warning? The specific criticism you've made, that there are "not enough sources," seems questionable, in that the article is actually fairly source-heavy, at least for a Wikipedia article of this length. I recently removed an entire paragraph specifically because it wasn't sourced. --John Callender 07:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It's been a week, and the original author hasn't bothered replying. Would anyone object if I removed the POV templates he added? -- John Callender 17:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was reviewing the section that I had problems with, and my position still stands. The TotallyDisputed template that I threw up still makes a lot of sense. There are no credible sources in that section: one is a blog, one is the National Inquirer, ect. I think you get the idea. The point is, without a real credible source, for example the New York Times, I have trouble believing what that section is saying. Also, to quote Citation 8, "We have absolutely no evidence to support our view." 21:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep your POV out of this. You are just a Bush supporter trying to stop information on a subject that hurts Bush from being posted. Typical Bush-style support such as this is against the guidelines of the wikipedia. Stop Me Now! 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I can see your point as to the "rumors of, and speculation about, continued drinking" section. The second and third paragraph of that section (the one starting "Several incidents during his presidency..." and the one referencing Capitol Hill Blue) strike me as really lightweight in terms of the evidence offered, and I'd be fine with just losing those, personally. I'll go ahead and do that now (though of course, anyone else who wants to make a case for bringing them back is invited to do so, and offer reasons supporting that action).
On the remaining two paragraphs of that section, though, I would disagree with removing them. Yes, granted, they are not the New York Times. But as has been discussed here previously, the National Enquirer is not exactly the same as a "space aliens ate my baby" publication. Their willingness to run the article they did is evidence, to my mind at least, that someone whom the tabloid's publishers could reasonably expect to be in a position to see the events described was willing to tell them (for a fee, presumably) that they'd seen such events. And having watched the video referenced in the first paragraph, I think it's at least worth mentioning in the context of a section about allegations of Bush's continued drinking.
As it stands, I don't think the article is in conflict with the NPOV policy. If you can be specific about what it is, exactly, that you think is grounds for including the POV warning template, either for the article as a whole or for that section in particular, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Thanks. -- John Callender 23:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


With the previous revisions, I am willing to take down the TotallyDisputed flag; however, I think it should be replaced with a disputed flag, because the official position by George Bush is runs contrary to what the listed sources say, and without a concrete source I find it unfair for us to make readers view that section without any sort of warning. If you disagree with that, feel free to remove the Disputed flag. As for the NPOV flag on the article, I think it can be taken down now. Shadow 00:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet again I have to point out that the section title makes clear that the section contains RUMOR and SPECULATION. The very definition of these words should alert the reader to the dubious/disputed content of these published and widely-circulated rumors and speculation.
Further, there is no need for a "facts are disputed" flag b/c the facts in the section are NOT disputed. The facts in this section are the presentations of the factual existence of certain published and widely-circulated rumors and speculation. The facts are NOT the rumors and speculation themselves, i.e. this section does NOT assert that these rumors and speculation are of any veracity, that is, containing factual content or being of a factual nature. It has not been shown that ANYONE denies that these rumors EXIST, regardless of the number of people who believe these rumors to be false. Does this make sense to anyone else? Am I being crazy or what?
I am removing the flag from this section. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and certainly doesn't need to use flags to help readers understand very basic words in an article. If "rumor" and "speculation" were being used as weasel words in an attempt to trick the reader, I could understand a Weasel Words flag, but despite the fact that at a glance they trip some people up, I feel like considered reading bears out their non-malicious nature. Turly-burly 02:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Drugs

I could find no credible source that mentioned the list of drugs that I recently reverted out of the article's lead paragraph. The list's lack of acronym capitalization -- not to mention its addition to the article by Anonymous IP -- makes me think it's vandalism. Here's what I removed: "as well as heroin, pcp, methamphetamines, and lsd,". Looks a little ridiculous to me. Turly-burly 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't just remove stuff. It needs to be discussed. Stop Me Now! 02:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Damage and Korsakoff's Syndrome

Needs to be some mention of the mounting evidence that Bush has some kind of organic brain damage [3] either due to Korsakoff Syndrome or Presenile Dementia, either of which could be a side effect of his alcoholism [4]. The invocation of the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office due to impairment has also been mentioned by some commentators.

[edit] Hula Jaw - bad redirect?

Hula jaw redirects to here, but there is no mention of this supposed neurological symptom in the article.


This sounds like Bullshit to me.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/e/o/Talk%7EGeorge_W._Bush_substance_abuse_controversy_6f37.html"