Bush Gets Stoned By The World Media

Bush Gets Stoned By The World Media
Posted by CN Staff on February 24, 2005 at 10:48:54 PT
By Jefferson Morley,WP Staff Writer
Source: Washington Post 
President Bush all but admits to illicit drug use for the first time. Overseas it's the stuff of headlines. At home, the U.S. press has generally downplayed the story. The divergent coverage of Bush's apparent drug use is a textbook study in the difference between the international online media and their American counterparts. On the issue of youthful illicit drug use, most U.S. news editors -- liberal, conservative or other -- defer to Bush in a way that their foreign counterparts do not.
The New York Times broke the Bush marijuana story Friday in a front-page report on Doug Wead, a Christian activist who has published a book based in part on conversations with Bush that Wead secretly recorded in 1998 and 1999. On Wead's tapes, whose authenticity the White House does not dispute, Bush came close to admitting he had smoked marijuana and avoided answering a question about whether he had used cocaine."I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried," Bush said.On a question about cocaine, Bush said he would reply, "Rather than saying no ... I think it's time for someone to draw the line and look people in the eye and say, you know, 'I'm not going to participate in ugly rumors about me and blame my opponents,' and hold the line. Stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on,'" according to a transcript excerpt posted on ABC's "Good Morning America" Web site.Since Bush has never acknowledged using drugs, the international media played up the marijuana angle.The BBC emphasized Bush's discretion in addressing the subject, saying "Bush hints he tried marijuana." So did Aljazeera: "Tapes hint Bush smoked marijuana." Swissinfo, a news site in Geneva, asked "Did Bush smoke pot?"In Australia, the Sydney Morning Herald focused on Bush's reasoning for not talking about the issue publicly. Bush worried young people would copy his cannabis use, the paper said. From South America to the Middle East to Asia, other news sites concluded that Bush's statements amounted to a confession. "Bush confessed to having smoked marijuana in his youth," declared Las Ultimas Noticias (in Spanish), a Chilean tabloid. "Bush's Marijuana Confession on Television," said Zaman, a leading Turkish daily. "Bush admits using marijuana," said Rediff, a news portal in India. In Tokyo, Japan Today said, "Secret tapes indicate Bush used drugs as youth." A few foreign sites offered more light-hearted headlines. "Bush's own 'smoking gun'," said the South Africa broadcast outlet, News24. The Economic Times of India sounded less than shocked: "Oh boy! George may have puffed on marijuana" was their headline.In contrast, most of the traditional leaders of American journalism -- the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times and the TV networks -- made no mention of drugs in their headlines, although all reported the substance of what Bush said on the tapes.The Times' story carried the headline "In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President" and mentioned marijuana in the third paragraph. The Post followed up the next day with "Secret Tapes Not Meant to Harm, Writer Says." Bush's drug comments were mentioned in the fifth paragraph of The Post story. Among national U.S. news outlets, only used the M-word in a headline declaring, "New Tapes Say Bush May Have Smoked Marijuana."Other national news outlets were more indirect. The Los Angeles Times said "Secret Tapes Show Bush's Concern Over Past." National Public Radio reported, "Phone Tapes Suggest Bush's Unlawful Past." For these sites and many others, the news was not "pot" but the "past," a word choice that signaled that the accompanying news story was not really new.The one medium where the drug angle was emphasized was local TV news, long regarded as the most sensationalist sector of American journalism. Stations from Los Angeles ("Tape Released of Bush's Wild Party Days") to New Orleans to Johnstown, Penn., highlighted Bush's apparent drug use. What explains the difference between the elite American media and the rest of the world? Admission of drug use by a national leader has made front-page news before. When Bill Clinton admitted in the 1992 presidential campaign to smoking marijuana both the Times ("Clinton Admits Experiment With Marijuana in 1960's") and The Post ("Clinton Admits '60s Marijuana Use") ran the story on page one. But that was during the heat of a presidential primary campaign when such revelations can be more consequential. It could be argued that the Wead tapes, coming to light after Bush's reelection, are unlikely to alter the political equation in Washington.The Bush administration and its supporters have never shied from criticizing news outlets like The Post and the Times for a perceived liberal bias. On tape, Bush complained about a media "campaign" against him. "It's unbelievable... they just float sewer out there," he's quoted as saying. If the big-name newspapers had played up the drug angle it's reasonable to assume that Republicans and conservatives on talk radio would renew such accusations. They might say liberal editors were dredging up an old story from a disloyal friend to thwart the agenda of a popular conservative president.Foreign editors (and local TV) have no such worries. They have a simpler view: George Bush using illegal drugs is worth a headline. Note: U.S. Press Less Interested in Drug Remarks.Source: Washington Post (DC)Author: Jefferson Morley,WP Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, February 24, 2005Copyright: 2005 Washington Post Contact: letterstoed washpost.comWebsite: Related Articles:Bush Keeps Dodging As Addicts Rot in Jail Tapes Say Bush May Have Smoked Marijuana Secretly Taped Conversations - New York Times 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #45 posted by Sukoi on February 27, 2005 at 17:54:40 PT
Yes, sorry but better late than never!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #44 posted by Hope on February 26, 2005 at 12:05:19 PT
Sukoi , comment #25
I emailed you that evening. Haven't had a response. Did you not get it?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #43 posted by FoM on February 26, 2005 at 08:21:11 PT
That is a very interesting map. Our county by that map is purple. I never thought of what states were republican or democrat until this past election. I'm glad about one thing. We don't have to worry about who to elect for a few years. I really mind politics. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #42 posted by mayan on February 26, 2005 at 04:10:02 PT
Here's a very interesting site with some maps showing that most of America is actually "purple". The government and media like to divide us with "red vs. blue",republican vs. democrat","conservative vs. liberal",etc.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #41 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 17:31:16 PT
That's so funny! Thanks for the laugh! Purple state!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #40 posted by mayan on February 25, 2005 at 17:28:47 PT
You live in a blue state. It was simply painted red illegaly by the Bushies and Ken Blackwell! I guess one could say you live in a purple state!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #39 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 11:23:16 PT
An Article About Red & Blue States
Blue in a Red AmericaThe values of Red America are ascendant: Fear, intolerance, and an insistence on imposing a pinched notion of morality on everybody else.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #38 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 09:25:15 PT
Blue State Vs. Red State
I want to mention why I think there is a difference. I never cared about things like red or blue states. It never entered my mind. People that voted for Bush are people that like his ideals. I find those ideals not good. The blue states have a live and let live way of thinking. So blue and red states are just for political reasons. It's how we think that matters. Hope I do hope you understand what I mean. I never cared about any of this but now we are headed to a 3rd World War and it does matter to me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #37 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 09:17:52 PT
Thank you. I really believe what I said too.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #36 posted by Hope on February 25, 2005 at 09:11:03 PT
Thank you, Cannaman
And you, too, FoM...I think. :-)I do think Wead's outing is ironic and I thought, also, that it would be nice if it were spelled with an e.Got brush to clear before the snakes are too active again. Brrrr...I don't like snakes.Short true snake story: Couple of summers ago my sister was riding in the pasture we are going to work on today. She had been riding for an hour or so fairly near a large brush pile that had gone into the dry summer without being burned...too late and too dangerous to burn at that time. Apparently the pounding hooves near their domain aroused some nasty citizens living in that brush pile to build up an amazing case of high anxiety. At one point as she rode near the brush pile, a multitude (at least seven) full grown copperheads sprang, simultaneously, straight up out of the brush pile right in front of her...higher than her head while she was horseback on a tall horse!I thought snakes could only strike like the length of their body! To me, and if you know copperheads, that's a worse snake story than a python in the commode! My lip is trembling. I'm scared now.Brrrr. I hope to prevent another such episode. I hate snakes. Now I'm getting scared.Watch for snakes!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #35 posted by rchandar on February 25, 2005 at 08:57:53 PT:
FoM's comment
Right on the money--Those "reformed" grass "addicts" can be some of the most severely fascistic and freedomless b $#tards. I bet that Hitler's "moment of clarity", if he had one (!!!) directed him to kill, kill, kill.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #34 posted by Cannaman on February 25, 2005 at 08:44:44 PT
How many of you think it is poetic justice that Bush's friend Mr. Wead was the one that outted him. The only thing that could have been better is if he spelled his name Weed instead of Wead. I love it....
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #33 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 08:28:07 PT
I don't like red states. I also live in a red state. I am a blue state person in my heart. It's not where we live but how we feel about life that matters. I'd move up to the north east to a state if my life and home weren't here.Loving one's state and living in one's state are two different things.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #32 posted by Cannaman on February 25, 2005 at 08:24:15 PT
To Hope
Hope, Texas is a great state and many wonderful people reside there, but you know the old saying, "one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch! Just kidding hope we love you!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #31 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 08:22:49 PT
 I remember Kerry saying that. Bush is really scary. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #30 posted by dididadadidit on February 25, 2005 at 08:12:52 PT
Comments on Comments
FOM comment #10: "Bush is scary to me."You are in good company FOM. Remember about a year ago during the primaries, John Kerry accidently(?) spoke over a live microphone he thought was off and said, "These guys are the worst bunch of liars and thieves I've ever seen." That is what was usually repeated in the press. Left behind was his second sentence, "It's really scary." Kerry, much closer to what is going on, is scared? It makes my (and others?) paranoia seem less paranoid and more a reality based fear.Comments 22 (Afterburner) and 23 (Sukoi) raising the question of "what about the children" (on lowering the drinking age) and the answer that the children don't matter as it is all about the money are right on target. The rethugnicans could care less about kids on drugs, as long as it is the "control" drugs serving the dual purpose of behavior control and funneling money into big pharma. Take the Bush Texas plan on mental health national, then kids nationwide will be tested for mental problems, and vast numbers of them then put on behavior control drugs (amphetamines and suicide inducing anti-depressants, for Christ's sake). Alcohol and tobacco are also large corporations giving plenty of juice to the rethugs (and lesser amounts to the dems, just in case they ever win another election and are needed) for having their interests served. Who cares if kids take up these most dangerous drugs, it is good for business.The hypocrisy of these sphincters is beyond belief. On another thread, this week they have the "Swift Boat Veterans for "TRUTH" " group being reborn to attack the ARRP over their opposition to the Bush plans on social security. The tactic? Avoid discussion of the issue, Rather, accuse ARRP of not supporting the troops and favoring gay marriage, as though that has anything to do with anything, much less social security or the truth.FOM and Kerry are right, these guys are really scary.Cheers?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #29 posted by Hope on February 25, 2005 at 07:51:51 PT
Don't hate me because I'm from Texas!
I'm no G. Bush fan. That's for sure. But sometimes I think your disdain for him spills over into dislike for all things Texan.I hope that's not true.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #28 posted by FoM on February 25, 2005 at 07:45:43 PT
breeze and mayan
I agree with both of you. I can't barely stand to see him on the news. He makes me feel sick and I mean that. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #27 posted by breeze on February 25, 2005 at 01:07:34 PT
"How did we get stuck with this guy? "All of the patriots and sentries were either brainwashed, asleep, or had self-interest in their corporate greed.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #26 posted by mayan on February 25, 2005 at 00:48:59 PT
Bush is about to get us into WWIII and the media is worried about him implying that he smoked bud years ago?Good thing the Washington Post is using this non-story to overshadow "Gannon-gate"! The bloggers are making the fascist media look pathetic. What will be the next cover-up story? Bush coming back from Europe with diarreah? I was hoping he'd stay over there but then the massive protests probably have the secret-service talking him out of it! Surely the protesters are kept out of Bush's sight. I wonder if they let him watch the news. I can picture him flipping through the channels and seeing coverage of the protests. "Are they pissed at ME?" - "Uh, no...they're celebrating your visit.""I knew they'd come around to my Texas charm!"How did we get stuck with this guy?  
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #25 posted by Sukoi on February 24, 2005 at 18:02:36 PT:
Thank you. Many at this site beleive as we do but so far I am the only one who is totally anti-prohibition and almost exclusively post in such a manner. You should consider helping me to spread the word, please email me!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #24 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 17:18:36 PT
Good rendition, Sukoi.
Once again. I'm honored and glad to be of help.(Somebody has already posted that...I assume since vaporized cannabis purportedly saved Bush’s was a good reason to keep it illegal. I guess that would be a Bush "burn".)Good job, Sukoi.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #23 posted by Sukoi on February 24, 2005 at 16:40:10 PT
The children
They don't really matter in the grand scheme as it is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #22 posted by afterburner on February 24, 2005 at 16:35:24 PT
I Couldn't Believe My Eyes...
so I wrote it down:Cover of current Teen Vogue magazine "BOOZE CONTROL: Should the drinking age be lowered?"WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???With an epidemic of teen-aged binge drinking, how can they even ask that question? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???How can the media be so cavalier about alcohol and yet so over-cautious about cannabis? It just doesn't make any sense.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by Sukoi on February 24, 2005 at 16:29:02 PT
Thanks and I'm not much of a writer but I was thinking about posting something along the lines of your comment. It worked out perfectly for me - timing! What I posted can be found at the link below, to get the gist of the thread you will need to read the first page. Thanks again and you should be "honored" along with everyone here; awesome all of you!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 16:15:46 PT
Actually, I'm honored that you find anything in what I write that you would want to repeat. Thanks!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 16:12:30 PT
Of course I don't mind. *smile*
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by global_warming on February 24, 2005 at 15:17:51 PT
"I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? "Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried," Bush said."George, what has changed you? Do you think that Jesus would frown upon your wretched soul, for what you smoked or sniffed?Do you think that your youthful curiosity and stupidity will damn your eternal soul?Might it be the fact that your quest for oil and all the consequences of your military actions, could weigh heavy on your soul?Is it possible that, rather than go face to face with those Arabs, who occupy the most oil rich real estate, that you learn how to harness the richness of this free world, to find alternative energy resources?There are choices, and while there is still a planet to be saved, I hope that you can find your way through this maze of greed and corrupted
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by Sukoi on February 24, 2005 at 15:17:08 PT
Would you mind if I used some of what you wrote in comment #4 for a post in a forum that I frequent?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 15:05:13 PT
Sam, about comment #4
Let Hope dream a little dream of Hope.
Let Hope dream a few hearts sing
And more when truth is the way
Let Hope dream a little dream of Hope.Let today, my glass be half full
Instead of boiling away in anger
Let today the wounds I feel
Be tempered with a dream.It’s not a pipe dream
It’s not a stoner’s dream
It’s my dream
A nice dreamMy dreams aren’t real
I imagine them
But today I dream one of Hope
Dream a little dream of HopeBig Brother won’t allow the help
That a cannabinoid might bring 
A dream to bring a “Merry heart”
Might be a next best thing 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 14:20:56 PT
Congratulations!I wonder if they argued for two weeks about whether or not to print your incisive and enlightening letter.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 14:13:34 PT
That is wonderful! Way to go!!!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by dongenero on February 24, 2005 at 14:11:51 PT
woo-hoo, getting published
My LTE of the Beacon Viewpoint which I posted here a couple of weeks ago is getting published! Dear Editor,
I am writing in regard to the info-mercial published in your February 11 
edition titled, Drug Experts Weed Out Myths of Marijuana. 
This may come as a surprise to you but, this article is a grossly one 
sided view of a very controversial issue. 
Ms. Barthwell has been pushing a great deal of misinformation and 
propaganda on the issue of cannabis. She cites, a number of "facts" and 
"statistics", many of which are at best misleading and at worst flat out 
lies.The reason for a majority of individuals in rehab for cannabis is, 
diversion from the drug courts in order to avoid incarceration.The correlation she cites between ER visits and cannabis is due to the 
fact that people are asked if they use any drugs. Whatever they answer 
is logged into the statistics of their ER visit. It does not imply 
cause of the visit, directly or indirectly.No reasonable person believes that minors should have access to cannabis 
or hard drugs or for that matter the hundreds of dangerous prescription 
drugs or alcohol and cigarettes. I argue that prohibition of cannabis 
for 'free' adults actually makes the substance more available to 
children and through those same channels of government supported 
organized crime, exposes them to truly deadly hard drugs. Numerous studies
have shown cannabis to be one of the least toxic 
therapeutic substances known to man and there is no known lethal dosage.There is also the issue of medical use of cannabis, with legislation 
currently sponsored in the Illinois House of Representatives. Much of 
the reason for Ms. Barthwell's focus on Illinois recently is in an effort 
to subvert this legislation. She has refused offers to engage in an 
honest debate on this issue with the bill's sponsor Larry McKeon 
(D-IL). The likely reason she will not debate is that many of these 
misleading statements and statistics she touts would be exposed for what 
they are, prohibition propaganda. That is what happened to her on a recent 
edition of the Montel Williams show, which focused on medical cannabis and 
multiple sclerosis. She will no longer engage in a debate format on the 
issue. Her positions cannot stand up to an honest, factual debate.I offer a link to another newspaper's coverage of this same lecture 
series from Barthwell's stop in Belleville, Illinois. This article from 
the Belleville News-Democrat represents what I feel is actual 
journalism. Rather than just reiterate Ms. Barthwell's talking points, 
the journalist has actually done additional research to explore the 
counterpoint of the issue. This makes the work from the Beacon News 
look lazy.,
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 14:04:27 PT
If Diogenes held his lantern to Bush's face...
he would not find what he sought.It's sad. When did dishonesty become a virtue?Perhaps the spirit of Honest Abe that some say roams the White House occasionally, ought to have a little session with Dishonest (it's best) George.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 13:24:30 PT
More Like
Do as I say, not as I did. I assume he isn't doing drugs anymore. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 13:21:46 PT
My Thoughts
Bush is scary to me. I don't think I've ever called a President scary but he is. I feel the combination of using a religious experience and being a "reformed drug user " is a dangerous combination. It is very easy to say, then do as I say, not as I do and no one seems to question it. That shocks me.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by dongenero on February 24, 2005 at 13:16:34 PT
Self-centered hypocrite. It seems to be the edict of the conservatives these days.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 12:40:44 PT
Animation from The Drug Policy Alliance
February 24, 2005 
Is it Wrong To Fire People for Smoking?Dear Fellow Reformer,Earlier this year, a Michigan health care company fired four employees for refusing to take a test to determine whether they smoked cigarettes. The company, Weyco Inc., adopted a policy that allows them to fire employees who smoke, even if the smoking happens after business hours, away from the office.The company says the policy is a response to the very real problem of increased health care costs that go along with smoking. But we think this is a dangerous precedent, because such a policy opens the door for companies to punish employees for a broad range of lifestyle choices and habits that might increase health care costs but which have no impact on job performance.What do you think?Let us know by watching our new flash animation that lays out the arguments for both sides and then taking a poll at the end to express your views.The animation and poll are at:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 12:31:35 PT
Here's a Link
JFK Jr.: Son Of Camelot Excerpt:John's mother also encouraged her son's adventurous side in a way that seemed almost risky. "I was sitting at my desk one evening, and I get a phone call, and the person says, 'Hello, this is Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis,'" recalls John Perry Barlow, a former lyricist for the Grateful Dead. Barlow runs a cattle ranch in Wyoming, and Jackie wanted her son, then 17, to spend a summer on the ranch. "We had an immediate bond," says Barlow. "She wanted her son to grow up to be a man," says Leamer. "Let him take chances. Let him learn and grow. Most mothers wouldn't have done that."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 12:25:24 PT
Something I Remember Reading
Jacqueline Kennedy sent her son John to spend a summer with the Grateful Dead when he was a teenager. The reason why was she wanted John to grow up and know there is more to life then what he sees. I thought that was so wise of her.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on February 24, 2005 at 12:20:00 PT
yeah right, it's more like - Jenna, where the hell is my bag! Have you been at my stash again!?!I read the book "The Senator" about Ted Kennedy once. Apparently a couple of his kids were getting out of control in the 70s, growing MJ plants in the family garden, doing lots of coke. So other family members & Kennedy's staff eventually shamed him into meeting with them to discuss things & "straigten them out". His staff waited for a couple hours during the meeting. When he came out, they said, "how'd it go?" he said, "Great! We discussed everything, I told them to get their act together, how much damage this drug can do, and then we all did a bunch of lines together!" A real father-son bonding moment! Who knows, his former aide who wrote the book could have made it up, but it sounds pretty realistic. Kennedy lived like a rock star in his younger days, partying & hooking up with women all over the place.I'm sure the Repubs are just as bad, they just work harder to hide it.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Hope on February 24, 2005 at 12:05:11 PT
It’s 2030.
Ex-president, George Bush sits in the big white rocking chair on his porch in Texas. It’s another beautiful spring that he’s being allowed by Grace to enjoy.Occasionally he thinks about what his life meant. What he is and was. He asks himself, “Was I an honest man, or did I spread lies and deception?”“Did I fear the truth and love a lie?”Suddenly his apparent gloom turns to a smile, “Not forever!” he thinks to himself.Smiling, he looks at the radiant, blessed people around him. “I’m glad my family likes to be around me.”“Jenna, will you bring me my bowl, please.”“Here ya go, Daddy.”She plants a little kiss on his cheek. He smiles up at her, “Thank you, Darlin.”
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by SoberStoner on February 24, 2005 at 11:43:45 PT
not surprising..
Most of us here realize that the 'liberal' media is just another concoction of the hype machines, but for those that are still unconvinced (like the writer of this article), read Eric Altermann's book, "What Liberal Media?"It's a well researched and infuriating look at how the American media outlets have been stolen from the American public in the last 20 years or so. Just a reminder, 90% of the American mass media is owned by 6 people, and the media is only as liberal as the people that own them.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on February 24, 2005 at 11:23:53 PT
You're so right!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Sam Adams on February 24, 2005 at 11:20:42 PT
The answer is right here
Nowhere in this article is it mentioned that this same Commander-in-Chief sends his minions out to arrest and jail 750,000 EACH YEAR for doing what he did. Somehow the American media is not interested in hypocrisy or integrity. Maybe it's now assumed that we're all lying hypocrites, and that's OK! Gotta love America, what a country!
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment