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… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (121)Page 1 of 1 pagesAnd what symptoms/characteristics does AA say that a dry drunk manifests:
“Grandiosity, put very simply, is an exaggeration of one’s own importance.” Well gee, Bush is the President. He actually is pretty important. Would anyone deny more important than a magazine writer?
“Judgmentalism is mutually related to grandiosity. It means that the alcoholic is prone to make value judgments”
Doesn’t everybody here do just this? Or do none of you nor this writer make value judgments of Bush and US policy?
I am a little confused by “Intolerance leaves no room for delaying the gratification of personal desires” and the claim that
“Impulsivity is the result of intolerance”
It appears they are only talking about impulsiveness. Even if not so, certainly no one here would ascribe impulsivity and intolerance only to alcoholics would you? If you would, why would you?
FInally “Indecisiveness”. I mean come on - which is it? Impulsive and intolerant or indecisive? They seem to be mutually exclusive. AA says “Indecisiveness stems from an unrealistic exaggeration of the negative possibilities of the action ; so one wavers between two or more possible courses of action, more times than not- nothing gets done”
I thought the complaint was that he was doing something that people have value-judged as incorrect and which they will not tolerate. Uh-oh - could we all be dry drunks?
Posted by Nus on May 19, 2003 at 8:47 PM Alan Bisbort’s Bush as dry drunk article first appeared in the American Politics Journal on 24 September 2002. Since then, Bisbort has been quoted and requoted. I would have guessed that the anti-Bush voices would have come up with some new material by now, but even Bush critics seem to have abandoned substantive issues.
Like most cults, AA members play all sorts of manipulative games with each other. One such game includes the use of the term “dry drunk.” Rather than having any validity as an alcoholic condition, the terms are used most popularly in AA to label someone who quit drinking on their own. “Ol’ Bob isn’t in ‘the program.’ He’s just a dry drunk.” It is also used to single someone out in AA who tends to speak their mind. In a bad mood in an AA meeting? You’re just on a “dry drunk” and you had better take a moral inventory of yourself and do some praying and start hitting more AA meetings and get honest with your AA sponsor.
Another reply to this article aptly asks, “could we all be dry drunks?” The answer is yes. If we are not in AA, we are essentially dry drunks. Addiction medicine is a branch of health care that was created mostly by AA members and people who were fond of AA for whatever reason. So somebody had to start seriously addressing the “dry drunk” phenomomenon. Picture a mad scientist wringing his hands, “Yes, the dry drunk is someone who resists cult indoctrination, and how is it that such a person will react to repeated attempts to break down their natural ego defenses: irritation, judgemental insights into the process, defense of their self-respect and self-efficacy (in AA this is known as arrogance), etc.”
In any of its uses the term is unfair and unhelpful. It is no more fair or helpful in criticizing Bush. Rather, it accuses Bush of a fabled condition, and provides him with the perfect defense: “They are just making stuff up about me again. How far out are they going to get?”
Even Bisbort himself has been duped by AA. “Stinking thinking,” that rascally aspect of dry drunkism killed his brother. Did it ever occur to him that AA failed him? After all, most alcoholics who quit successfully do so without AA.
The nature of AA indoctrination can get pretty fascistic. Is this the way to criticize an administration that seems to have some fascistic tendencies? Just borrow some fascistic concept like “dry drunk” and throw it at Bush? How unpatriotic!
Posted by Michael on May 20, 2003 at 1:24 AM Absolutely OUTSTANDING! And finally, the bizarre behavior of this idiot Dubya begins to be understood. We Americans are stupid to put up with this turkey, and Herr Asscroft, too!
Posted by Alan Taylor on May 20, 2003 at 2:08 AM Rings entirely true! Frightening nightmare our country is in. Please keep the truth coming…it’s our only hope.
Posted by Eva Knapp on May 20, 2003 at 2:10 AM Despite the origins or validity of the term, the truth is that alcoholics are often crazy. Some due to damage from years of drinking, some at the outset. Anyone who has loved and dealt with an alcoholic, or more likely a family or office full of them, knows it.
Alanon members (which is most likely what the author of this piece is or was) use the term dry drunk in another context than the ones mentioned in previous comments: it describes the heartbreakingly common phenomenon of an alcholic ceasing to drink and being none the better for having done so, except maybe physically. Their mental and emotional functioning does not improve at all. They are too far gone.
I actually agree that AA and Alanon’s philosophies are built on a slippery enough slope to eventually apply to everyone in America or even in the world. However, it’s clear that Bush is not a sane and healthy person. Whether you want to attribute it to alcoholism, a dry drunk, insanity, stupidity, evil… doesn’t really make any difference.
Humankind has debated the origins of and motivations behind outrageous behavior for centuries. There are no definitive answers as to why, it will vary with whom you ask, but it’s clear something is wrong with this man and the nation has to do something about it. He’s sown the seeds for WW3. I don’t think critiques of AA, valid or otherwise should distract us from that issue.
Posted by sdgdf on May 20, 2003 at 2:21 AM I enjoyed Alan Bisbort’s article “Dry Drunk” although I think that some of his paranthetical remarks detracted from the point of the article. Alan makes a strong and simple point but only detracts from it by making wide sweeping, and in my opinion, inaccurate remarks such as “Iraqís apparently nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, which must mean that it really was, all along, about the oil.”
The war was not just about weapons of mass destruction, it was not just about oil, it was not just about any one thing. To argue that it was proves to ignores the complexity of the situation in the world today. Alan’s point would’ve been better served had he simply stuck to simple facts and insights and made his point, rather than making grand naive statements.
Posted by Christian OBrien on May 20, 2003 at 4:43 AM You subscribe to what Szasz (the pssychologist) calls enabling an
alchoholic by labeling it as a medical illness.The fact is, Geo. W is a close-minded, chauvanistic imperialist of the old school. No need to look further, although it does make interesting reading!
Posted by Paul La Rocca on May 20, 2003 at 1:36 PM Just so you know, this online story has multiple links to the “ultimate porn house” under the words ‘mature’ and ‘suck’, its probably just a practical joke, but very out of place and just a bit offensive. Just thought you should know.
-Etosha Terryll
Posted by Etosha Terryll on May 20, 2003 at 5:32 PM Since I’m the author of this story, I am disturbed by the last message about “porn sites”. Either someone has hacked into this piece and done this out of sheer malice or the person who wrote the last message is trying to tar me by some sort of unverifiable insinuation. Either way, my article is pure as the driven snow and I am more convinced than ever before that Bush is a dry drunk, who is operating on thin ice. I would hope that people take the implications of my piece seriously and follow up by seeking out a piece by Dr. Katherine van Wormer on CounterPunch, which goes into the biochemical and brain-related issues involved with years of heaving drinking as Bush, indisputably, has experienced (even he admits as much).
It’s frightening. Take it at least seriously enough to open your minds to the possibility that the president is not operating with a completely full deck.
Posted by Alan Bisbort on May 20, 2003 at 6:45 PM I’ve thought the President had dry drunk symptoms for some time. The secrecy, the isolation except for carefully staged appearances, even his (to me) rather wizened visage all seem to support such a judgment. Even with all his control, too, a petty meanness seems to pop out in way too many public appearances for it not to be characteristic. For example, in a television interview when the Dixie Chicks were mentioned, he couldn’t help himself from voicing his satisfaction that people had stopped buying their records (after he sanctimoniously pointed out that everyone had a right to say what they wanted to in this country, so of course, he wasn’t bothered by their comments about him.) I’ve witnessed up close someone in the throes of out-of-control dry drunk symptoms. The theory makes sense.
Posted by Genie Jacobson on May 20, 2003 at 10:50 PM Great article. I don’t want to scare everybody anymore than I have to, but Cheney also had a drinking problem. We have two dry drunks. I would also like to point out something else. Alcoholics typically have nutritional disorders and crave sugar, simple carbs, etc. Low blood sugar can be quite severe and cravings can be so intense that some one might choke on a pretzel. During these periods of intense cravings there can be bouts of rage, brain fog and fatigue.
Posted by Fred Noelke on May 20, 2003 at 11:28 PM I am amazed that so many people, with no medical background, can first say that Pres. Bush was an alcoholic, and now determine that since he used to be an alcholic, but is no longer drinking, he must be a “dry drunk”, and suffer bizarre personality symptoms related to his state of “dry drunkeness”. What is missing from this article is proof that Pres. Bush was an alcholic as opposed to a merely heavy drinker. They are not synonymous. Bush says he was a “heavy drinker”. What does that mean in terms of alcohol actually consumed? How much alcohol does one have to consume to suffer brain damage over a period of years? Is it the same for everyone? Alcoholism has its roots in a metabolic craving for alcohol. Some people drink because they enjoy it, enjoy the people they are with when they are drinking, and enjoy the way they feel when they are drinking. But, enjoying alcohol does not make one an “alcoholic”, nor does perceived irritability exhibited by the man holding the most important job in the world necessarily mean that he is a “dry drunk”.
Posted by Mary Anne Berenguer on May 21, 2003 at 12:35 AM I am no fan of President George W. Bush but find this presumptuous article to be ignorant, abusive and disrespectful. Probably the author would also consider me to be a dry drunk!
Posted by Anonymous on May 21, 2003 at 4:03 AM It appears that you’ve got a Jayson Blair problem—Alan Bisbort’s “Dry Drunk” is a near-duplicate of a column by the SF Chronicle’s Harley Sorenson from several months ago. Check it out.
Posted by JR Dunn on May 21, 2003 at 4:37 AM I remember GW back in the pre-9/11 days and thinking to myself, how on earth did this moron ever become President of the USA? I often wondered where the pitch fork was since he seemed so “right off the farm” when making any sort of public statement. Alcohol (or any other substance) abuse as an excuse or not, he was a moron then and still is today. And giving credit where due, he’s an educated one. It just happens that in Shrub’s case smarts and intelligence aren’t a part of the equation. How else does one explain being stupid enough to be involved with Cocaine?
Anybody giving Shrub credit for being smart enough to engineer the current state of global chaos needs to have their head examined. He’s not that smart ladies and gentlemen. Nor is he that all-mighty. In the end he will wind up being the sacrificial lamb for those who are really in control. He’s just too dumb to see it. Just another casualty of war.
My theory is that his cowboy boots are too tight. Any takers?
Posted by no matta on May 21, 2003 at 5:35 AM I’ve always had a little trouble with the “dry drunk” model. Surely it’s possible that, rather than Bush acting like a mean irresponsible jackass as a result of his drinking problems, that he has, inter alia drinking problems because basically, he’s a mean irresponsible jackass?
Posted by Moll on May 21, 2003 at 9:26 AM Bush is not a dry drunk. He is a binge drinker and it’s fairly obvious on the days when he’s recovering. His obvious impairment and cover up lie about choking on a pretzel raise serious questions that should have been asked. Its obvious when people are choking on food they have time to get help, especially when the secret service is in the next room. You dont end up falling flat on your bloated face thereby miracously dislodging the food and remaining unconscious. His sobriety like his faith are a myth perpetrated on the gullible. I wish he would have to answer questions under oath about his private habit just like Clinton had to.
Posted by Jeff on May 21, 2003 at 11:44 AM No, J.R. Dunn, if there is a Jayson Blair problem it is with Harley Sorenson. My article was originally published on Sept. 24, 2002, the number of commentators (including Sorenson, Tina Brown, David Hare, and many more) who’ve taken my contention as their own is frustrating, to say the least. Perhaps you should send one of your emails to Mr. Sorenson.
Posted by Alan Bisbort on May 21, 2003 at 12:14 PM For a good look at The Real George Bush, click here: http://makethemaccountable.com/real/
Posted by Carolyn Kay on May 21, 2003 at 12:25 PM Bush’s binge drinking was famous at Yale. He and his frat buddies would put on yellow rain slickers for their Friday night drinking fests, so they could throw up on themselves and each other, without making too bad a mess.
I’ve always wondered about their dates. Did they get slickers, or did they just get barf?
Posted by Dogfolks on May 21, 2003 at 1:22 PM How low can In These Times go? This story is the latest example. Bisbort does not claim to be a psychologist, nor are any mental health professionals cited in his story, therefore my use of the word story can be defined as a fictional anecdote intended to amuse friends and colleagues.
Posted by Jon on May 21, 2003 at 2:22 PM amen. GWB is a mean-spirited, self-serving elitist SOB. a phoney “cowboy” through and through. the only thing he rides is a golf cart. he exhibits mostly contempt for people outside his social class. the only question is: does he still drink? the “pretzel incident” suggests he does.
it’s obvious: the reason he stumbles over his grammer so much, and the reason he can’t answer questions clearly, is a combination of both stupidity and damage done by alcohol.
Posted by CLP on May 21, 2003 at 2:36 PM Remarkable insight into the “character” of the “man” even if one doesn’t totally ascribe his actions to alcohol problems. He also displays many of the characteristics exhibited by short males, even if though he is of average height.
My parents were alcoholics. Neither exhibited any of the traits Shrub does…..but both were insecure without their “dutch” courage.
The change in him since he started his run for the Presidency has been obvious. He started out with bravado inherited from his background and the sycophants who surround him….but there was obvious insecurity if he got caught in a situation where they weren’t there to block for him.
Now he appears like a ham actor who is starting to believe his press agent.
What I keep asking myself is: why is it so few of us recognize the deep flaws in this person?
Thank you for helping to lift the veil - even if there are not many who have the wit to look under it.
Posted by Jo Ann McGrath on May 21, 2003 at 3:56 PM Yes, This is the truth. The man is a drunk and I am sick of drunks ruining my life. I want Bush out of that White House. He is an international disgrace.
Posted by M on May 21, 2003 at 4:18 PM Mr. Bisbort,
You have posted twice on this board to tout both your article “pure as the driven snow” and yourself.
Perhaps you neglected to read the first post here because I questioned some of the assertions made concerning your ‘diagnosis’ of Bush as a dry drunk.
I now ask you specifically to address these problems with your specious diagnosis of this spurious syndrome, which has been developed by an organization which is based upon belief in mythological beings.
Posted by Nus on May 21, 2003 at 4:37 PM No, its not possible. You dont get those broken capillaries and characteristic blue bruises from simply being an idiot. I saw them quite a bit working with alcoholic patients from the VA years ago.
Posted by Jeff on May 21, 2003 at 4:39 PM Here’s the one I’ve been wanting to write for a long time. Just goes to show, if you don’t act on the idea, someone else will!
Posted by Sulima Malzin on May 21, 2003 at 5:31 PM You hit the nail on the head… excellent story. Bush needs to work that 12 step program!!!!
Posted by Audrey on May 21, 2003 at 6:08 PM My husband was a rip sortin drunk and drug user for 35 years who had the courage to stop cold turkey with NO help 5 years ago (about the time we got married). I can tell you as an outside observer with a medical background, that being a dry drunk is a very real thing and that GW exhibits ALL the behavior. So while you debate the merits of AA and if being a dry drunk is a factor in the decisions made, we have a impared President running this country into the ground. So keep debating!! By the time you all figure it out it will be to late and the America I love will be just a memory…lost in a dry drunks haze.
Posted by Kay MacKeand on May 21, 2003 at 6:14 PM Well, George W. Bush is drunk, but…
Hear me out. He is drunk from the 10% methanol in the artificial sweetener, aspartame (Equal,NutraSweet)
Methanol is poisonous wood alcohol and its neurotoxic presecnce in 9,000 products is even causing cirrhosis of the liver in 9 year olds, an entire new disease called NASH, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis.
Right after the ‘pretzel choking’ incident… I wrote a piece (published on rense.com) “Is George W. Bush an aspartame victim?”
A picture on the front page of the Chicago Tribune with Mayor Daley shows both of them drinking diet Coke. Bush has a cocktail napkin over the top of his can—bar etiquette meaning, don’t take this away. I’m not finished.
In 1995, the FDA was forced to reveal under the Freedom of Information Act, 92 symptoms of aspartame. Seizure is No. 8 which is what I believe happened during the pretzel choking. He was lucky to get up after he ‘hit the deck.’ Here are some other appropriate symptoms.
Difficulty swallowing is No. 29. Fainting is No. 36. No. 32 is speech impairment. No. 56 is unconsciousness and coma. No. 61 is unsteady gait. No. 62 is coughing. No. 77 is death—yeah, the FDA calls death a symptom—
Check out www.dorway.com for all the truth on aspartame including Congressional Records, doctor’s postition papers and case histories.
Posted by Carol Guilford on May 21, 2003 at 6:15 PM Dry nothing. This idiot’s still drinking. Watch the tape on The Smoking Gun.
Posted by Frank McEvoy on May 21, 2003 at 6:38 PM I’ve seen it on The Smoking Gun and I’ve heard it from friends close to this admin. He never stopped drinking, lies about it and the worst part is he’s reportedly a mean drunk.
Posted by Jeff on May 21, 2003 at 6:56 PM He also show all the signs of a psychopathic personality, also
known as a “spoiled brat”. As does
most of those in his cabnet.
Posted by chris on May 21, 2003 at 7:00 PM We heard this when Dubya was in TX long ago & there’s no doubt about it.
Posted by Yellow Dog on May 21, 2003 at 9:24 PM Excellent article. There is a book called “When Society Becomes an Addict” that would explain our tolerance with this system.
Posted by Vanessa Roessler on May 22, 2003 at 12:31 AM Thank you for this story, I did not
know about “dry drunk.” I actually
thought that he was presently
drinking and it was being hidden like
everything else. I pray for a scandal for him, he deserves it. He
is one evil man. Your story is the truth and everyone needs to hear it.
Posted by Rochelle Snyder on May 22, 2003 at 3:01 AM alan
your comments on your beloved brother touched my soul
your incisive comments on dubya need to be read by millions and millions who are awash in this cableTV hoopla and hype - thanks
Posted by hamid on May 22, 2003 at 4:34 AM Your story needs to be read by all Americans, that is true. But frankly. not near as much as the story Fred Flowers told here on a blog thread where the blogger said lefty bloggers walk in lock-step and right wing bloggers are ‘free thinkers’ and libertarians. Not one person when I last looked had addressed Mr. Flowers’ post. Amazing and shocking at the same time. I thought conservatives were hypocrites, but this story takes the cake,
Yes, he is a mean dry drunk, but that is the least of our problems, near as I can figure everything in Flowers’ post is true.
Fred Flowers post:
http://www.patrickruffini.com/rants/001198.php#c4154Learn more here:
http://www.geocities.com/nomoonies/chronicles/a_moon_primer.html
Posted by Hayden on May 22, 2003 at 5:56 AM alcoholism is a disease plain and simple. an alcoholic can stop drinking and still maintain the same outside behaviors that existed while they were drinking. treatment centers and recovery programs understand that the recovering alcoholic must be vigilant in actively working to address the inherent nature of their disease or else run the risk of relapse. a dry drunk is a condition that only gets worse; not only does the alcoholic suffer but the those around them do as well. resentment, dishonesty and exaggerated egosim are all proven personality traits of the alcoholic, wet or dry. eventually the dry alcoholic will drink or find some other way to self-destruct. it’s worth noting the fact that one alcoholic can have a terrible impact on the lives around them. if president bush is an alcoholic - and only he knows - then what we are seeing is probably the greatest example of alcoholic rampage in the history of the world.
Posted by Stewart W. on May 22, 2003 at 7:25 AM Excellent article!
Thanks.
The last 3 paragraphs are especially important.
Posted by mad_as_h on May 22, 2003 at 2:02 PM This was excellent!!
Anyone who has had this problem in their family knows from experience about this behavior. He is all the things that the author wrote about. People should stop denying these facts before our country is completely destroyed.
Posted by Lona Stadtlander on May 22, 2003 at 3:43 PM Great article. After having known alcoholics and people who struggle with personality disorders, I can see the signs too. He said that he stopped drinking when his children were born but according to the dates his daughtes were 4 or 5 when he stopped drinking. It is hard to imagine a man who would drink when he had two little ones.
Posted by jay on May 22, 2003 at 4:06 PM Whether he’s “dry” or just drunk (which seems more likely) , in fact the entire matter, is silly - Mr b is stupid, a stand-in stooge for specific interests. A fall guy if ever there was one! While he focuses our attention they loot the Country and indeed aim for the world itself. The instant that he fails to obey their dictates and facilitate their goals, which he may not understand, he’ll be removed, perhaps even by impeachment. Even though he’s dangerous, mean, low-class and a loose cannon, I can’t help feeling sorry for dim sun. How the ghost of Truman must feel! For the office to be so fouled.
Posted by bill on May 22, 2003 at 4:12 PM in February i read a great piece in the London Times I think about Bush’s behavior. The author referred to him as a recovering alcoholic without explanation. can’t recall any US press describing him that way.
his decision to quit makes it seem as though his consumption was out of control - but he won’t describe himself as an alcoholic - so it’s not denial really because he quit. then what is it? and why didn’t he ever tell his daughters about his excessive use - it might have helped them as they got into situations.
Posted by scoodyboo on May 22, 2003 at 5:51 PM Ms. MacZKeond, You say: “I can tell you as an outside observer with a medical background, that being a dry drunk is a very real thing and that GW exhibits ALL the behavior.”
So he is both impulsive and indecisive, acting quickly and unable to act? How do you comport these apparently contradictory statements?
He has an exagerrated sense of his own importance - Does he imagine that he is President of the most powerful nation on earth?
He makes value judgments. I ask again, don’t you? Doesn’t everybody? What is wrong with making value judgments and how does it indicate a mental pathology?
Posted by Nus on May 22, 2003 at 7:01 PM Did Sentor’s Dodd and Liebreman see this? If not they should it’s a great story.
Posted by Mary T.Brown on May 22, 2003 at 9:09 PM This article should be running in every newspaper in the country, where there is any concern about the future of our country, and on every TV network and channel all over the USA.
Posted by Frankzee on May 22, 2003 at 11:01 PM “It is hard to imagine a man who would drink when he had two little ones.”
It is? Anyone here take a drink when they had small children? Did your parents? Do your friends?
Such a statement does not indicate a mere lack of imagination. I needn’t state obvious fact of what it does illustrate.
Posted by Nus on May 23, 2003 at 5:16 PM hey rochelle snyder, you’r post was one of the most anti-american posts by someone who obviously cares deeply about this country. Don’t you realize that if there is a scandal on our president, it demeans our entire country?
To the people who called W stupid: W graduated from Harvard business (you can get into Harvard by knowing the right guy, but you can’t graduate, ask Ted Kennedy who flunked out).And to everyone that calls W evil, Saddam is evil, bin Laden is evil, Kim Jong Ill is evil, W is a teddy bear compared to those guys.
Posted by Brad on May 23, 2003 at 7:39 PM I have been aware of the Denial and Arridity of King GEORGE for Two Years!!!!!
Also The Need For ALL Republican Leaders Political&Religious; to Rehab at Betty Fords for Their Addiction To Blue Collar Greenbacks!!
Maybe They are Not Greedy No Good BASTARDS,JUST Spiritually
SICK NO GOOD BASTARDS!
THE Hard PART For Them Is Their ADMISSION To this GLARING PROBLEM! Honesty,Open Mind,Willingness,How it works!
Honesty is part of the Program!IT works if You work It!
One Day at A Time! This Too shall Pass!Easy Does It! DENIAL IS NOT A RIVER IN EGYPT!!!!!!!!!!
God Bless Stan P.
Posted by Stan P. on May 23, 2003 at 11:33 PM He may still indulge secretly…who knows…either way he is bad news
Posted by Marsha on May 25, 2003 at 5:09 PM This explains a lot of Bush’s abhorrent behavior. Thank you for such a wonderful article.
Posted by Beverly Hill on May 25, 2003 at 7:48 PM I am a recovering alcoholic, with no fear of not being anonymous, as I have been in recovery for 20 years thanks to Alcoholics Anonymous. There are a lot of people who are very concerned about “Dubya’s” arrogance. His “my way or the highway” attitude is making people begin to have doubts about his leadership qualities. This country does not need a CEO with a short fuse and a long history of pandering to huge corporate entities. Also, there are a great many people who have valid fears for 1. the environment, 2. the economy, and 3. the disparity between those who have everything and the more and more of those who have nothing. I think Mr. Bisbort’s article has a real ring of truth.
Posted by roundhill on May 26, 2003 at 1:00 AM I don’t know that I feel the need to blame the actions of George Bush on being “dry drunk” or that I need to know why he has acted so reprehensibly. I do know that I believe he is out of control, crazy, and that we are in deep deep trouble.
Posted by Elizabeth Moss on May 27, 2003 at 4:40 AM I think that we have a lot of “dry drunk” Americans over here and they just don’t get it! Or they just don’t have it to get!
Posted by Jean Scott on May 28, 2003 at 12:08 PM You obviously don’t know as much about alcoholism as you would like your readers to believe. A true alcoholic has to stop “cold turkey”. There is no “I’ll just have one drink and than I’ll stop. Bravo to President Bush for being a recovered alcoholic and admitting it! I’ll go for the honest “stumbling” admission rather than the smooth talking “I smoked pot but didn’t inhale” speech any day of the week!
Posted by Pam Smith on May 29, 2003 at 5:12 PM Alan Bisbort didn’t plagiarize me.
Several of us have written about Bush being a “dry drunk.” Since the facts about Bush are constant, it makes sense that our articles would appear somewhat similar.
Bisport’s column on the subject was better than mine.
Posted by Harley Sorensen on May 29, 2003 at 5:45 PM Hey Brad. W is stupid. Listen to him.Or better,look in his eyes:what do you see? VACCUUM!!!! This guy looks as smart as a (texan) cow.
What’s all this fuzz about the fact that he graduated from Harvard? Are diplomas a remedy against stupidity?
Posted by JB on May 30, 2003 at 2:55 AM Oh I forgot. Bush is evil as much as the other assholes you maned,Brad. Everyone who leads others to slaughters and wars is evil. That reminds me Jim Morrison:
” do you know that we are led to slaughter by placid admirals and that,fat generals are getting obscene on young blood ”
Posted by JB on May 30, 2003 at 3:04 AM Great Article, what is written in this article is not what scares me because I knew back in 2000 that we were going to be in trouble with this fool in office. The scary part is that as I’m going through the reader comments you see so many people still drinking the Kool-aid. still cannot admit to themselves that this man and his cronies have brought ruin to the economy, laid waste to any goodwill extended after 9-11 and still say that they would rather see him (Bush) in the whitehouse than a man who lied about an extra marital affair. Well this man has since lied us into war, and is getting ready for another lie to cover up the fact that with him as president the economy is the worse it’s ever been. Even worse than the Republican god himself Reagan. Go ahead people keep drinking the Kool-aid keep arguing the specifics of what a dry drunk is and avoiding what is truly the issue here. This man has lied to the American public about WMD, about 9-11 etc. etc. and yet it’s okay because he brought honor back to the whitehouse. (gag) one other big lie COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE can the man even spell the words.
Posted by olga on May 30, 2003 at 5:15 AM I’m a long-time sober member of AA. I attend a lot of meetings, and do service, such as chairing meetings, greeting newcomers, sponsoring, etc.
Regarding the term “dry drunk”: my understanding is that if one has alcoholism, then that disease never goes away. When an alcoholic stops drinking, the alcoholism remains. Some type of effective treatment is therefore called for, as drinking is but a “symptom” of the illness. Without drinking, the illness is still present.
The most effective treatment for alcoholism known to humankind so far is an active involvement in AA and the program of recovery that it offers. There are other ways to stop drinking and treat the alcoholism.
Basically, if an alcoholic does not drink, and does not treat the alcoholism, they will likely suffer from certain personality disorders that are at the root of alcoholism.
I’ve experienced what I would term being a “dry drunk.” I think most sober alcoholics go through periods of this, but if they get back on track it will pass. For me, and others whom I’ve seen go through it, it is essentially described as being exceptionally angry, arrogant, distressed, feeling very “squirrelly.” Without taking a drink, I can exhibit a lot of extremely self-centered behaviors.
Lashing out, feeling put-upon and disconnected, and primarily as I said before, exceptionally angry, are the primary effects.That is one of the many reasons I stay connected to AA. I’m not cured of alcoholism…I never will be. There is no cure. Just a daily reprieve that can last for a lifetime. I need the support of AA to make that happen.
Regarding the idea that Bush is a dry drunk, it seems to me that this a very plausible idea. First off, he may not be an alcoholic. And, he may be an alcoholic who is in AA or treating his alcoholism in another manner. However, it seems to me that he is quite probably an alcoholic who is on an extended dry drunk. He certainly seems to be drunk on the power of the position that he holds. It IS an incredibly powerful position, of course. But he is a real bully, full of arrogance. He does lash out, and is smug and intolerant.
He does seem to me to exhibit a lot of qualities of a dry drunk. He seems to have no humility whatsoever, and his hubris is, in my opinion, endangering our country. It is very scary.
Alcoholism, if untreated, has profound negative effects. And the American president seems to be suffering from this problem.
Posted by Anonymous on May 30, 2003 at 6:04 PM You have identified a valid, real pathology. This is bipolar disorder, on a subclinical level. My experience suggests that yeast intolerance, alcoholism, hypoglycemia, and bipolar disorder are cognate and form a constellation of symptoms very much like those you observed in Mr. Bush. And this may very well be true whether the patient currently drinks or now teetotals.
Posted by Marshall Fine on Jun 1, 2003 at 6:02 PM A sexual obsessive? A raging alcoholic? Waddaya say, folks, let’s go for a pedophile next.
Tim
Posted by tim snyder on Jun 1, 2003 at 6:27 PM Tim, Nobody has to exaggerate when they describe G.W. Bush as an idiot, dry drunk or alcoholic, power-mad, arrogant fool, pawn to those he represents (corporate jerks, not “we the people”) and helps pass legislation favorable to those same corporate sharks; dishonest (he lies about his past, for example: going absent for about a YEAR from the Alabama National Guard after his transfer there from Texas National Guard); paranoid (20 mile no-fly-zone around his ranch in Crawford, TX when he is in town) and that was right after he was placed in the White House, who was he so afraid of????? He also lacks compassion. I do not have to try to very hard to come up with tons of stuff that I do not have to exaggerate about, so I think that the above indicates that he is a person who has no business running a corporation, much less a COUNTRY!!! Maybe if Mom and Dad had not been power-mad THEMSELVES and made sure sonny boy (s) (actually ALL the Bush boys are frauds!!) got into the best schools and mysteriously passes even though he was drinking (I smell favoritism and fraud BIGTIME) and has a lazy, never-been-used brain, MAYBE he would just be someoneís drunk husband (sad) instead of driving all sane people out of their minds with his megalomania and war (oil) mongering!!! And, if he is a Christian, he is the far-right wacko type of Christian, not my kind of believer, especially since he does not have any qualities of Jesus, even though he seems to think he is GOD by the way he rules the country. He reminds me of that mad NERO who played the fiddle while Rome burned. I pray often that there be justice, but I think this one will have to play out. I do pray that people WAKE UP to the insanity and speak out about it and not be afraid!! In the meantime, Tim, we have enough pedophiles and that is sad, and I do not remember reading any of the comments here that said G.W. was one. However, he IS OBSCENE spiritually, mentally, and emotionally, and that is just as bad, so once again I say I do not have to make this up, this nightmare that is G.W. Bush. —Ruth
Posted by Ruth on Jun 3, 2003 at 11:15 PM I think the American people don’t care about the dry drunk in the White House because this is now the norm. All the years of AA, Al-Anon, and ACOA have helped only those who want help. We are a society of bred enablers and consider ourselves to be entitled to whatever we can get by whatever means necessary (hence the new regime’s popularity). If I could talk my husband into it, I’d move to Canada. I am thoroughly disgusted and pissed. I come from an alcoholic home and feel like I’m 15 y/o again trying to reason with a whole nation of stupid, lazy, and entitled assholes.
Posted by Cat on Jun 12, 2003 at 4:30 PM Cat, please move to Canada. I, for one, don’t want you here and I can’t imagine that anyone else does either, unless they like being preached at and being generalized as stupid, lazy, and entitled assholes. So take your condescending attitude to Canada if that will make you feel better. This article sucks, by the way. It’s based entirely on the far-fetched claim that Bush must have been an alcoholic because he used to drink heavily. Sorry to ruin your fun, but that does not make one an alcoholic.
Posted by Tom on Jun 12, 2003 at 9:16 PM Tom its people like you who are destroying this democracy. You know damn well you don’t fall flat on your face and pass out from a pretzel. If you would take the time to educate yourself about the man’s sordid history instead of criticizing others youd be better off. You are pathetically gullible. By the way did you know bush is using your tax dollars are going to support universal health care in IRAQ???
Posted by Jeff on Jun 13, 2003 at 12:03 PM Thought this might interest you and Charley. it certainly explains things. And it’s scarey;
Mom
Posted by Pat on Jul 17, 2003 at 6:23 PM this is not related to this story but i wonder when king george 2 will have his followers drink grape kool aid!
Posted by richard emerick on Jul 19, 2003 at 6:46 AM Brad, Jeff,
Arguing with people you is for fools. We here know the truth and aren’t blinded. We question when bullshit is presented to us. To blindly follow an idiot in office is stupid, unpatriotic and does more damage to this country.
Of course, if you’re white, affluent and powerful, then you’re probably on his side. The rest, as we have seen from his lack of compassion, call all go to hell.
Posted by neil on Jul 29, 2003 at 7:56 AM Yeah, I have spell checker!
Jeff, here’s a bit of Bush’s history. And by the way, there was universal health care in Iraq before “pResident” dumbass illegally invaded.
http://www.takebackthemedia.com/bushnonazi.html
Posted by neil on Jul 29, 2003 at 11:38 AM Fools, You have no perception! Anyone who has been in “The Program” recognizes the boss’ behavior as active alcoholism.
Look further. I’m thinking Antichrist.
Posted by Rick on Aug 2, 2003 at 7:55 AM Great article!
To the rest of you angry liberals, here’s a suggestion on how to get rid of your boy President: VOTE!
If more Americans had recognized Bush’s stupidity in 2000 (or at least given it more weight when voting) you wouldn’t be in this mess, so push away from the PC, grab two friends and do something about it in ‘04.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ll take a bland, wooden Rhodes Scholar over a folksy, witty intellectual lightweight any day.
Posted by ian on Aug 4, 2003 at 1:37 AM Alcoholism (or similiar mind altering chemicals) are often described in terms of diseases that afflicts the lives of individuals and the community surrounding them. I remember an astounding statistic that the average addict or alcoholic had a serious affect on the lives of 40 people whose contact put them in close and personal with their disease. The statistical average may now need to be readjusted given increased numbers of groups, military personell, Middle East lives and families now at war without legitamite links to attacks made Tuesday September 11th, 2001.
Posted by CGilbert on Aug 5, 2003 at 3:58 AM That would explain the puzzling syntax and illogical policy. Now what to do?
Posted by Ray Weinmann on Aug 7, 2003 at 2:09 AM Alan Bisbort is a Fricking MORON just like Michael Moore
Posted by Micky Mouse on Sep 27, 2003 at 7:49 PM i wasn’t going to add anything to the readers comments, but after reading the final comment made by an apparently incredibly eloquent and articulate rodent(can you smell the sarcasm here mickey mouse),i just want to say that i don’t know if anyone can actually believe that Shrub was just a “heavy drinker” without being a booze soaked idiot themselves. Everyone knows that the term is just frat boy lingo for a raging alcoholic.
But I agree with an earlier comment , let’s vote this arrogant,sociopathic narcissist out of the White House.
Posted by buck on Oct 7, 2003 at 2:53 AM Do you think there is a chance he is still sneaking drinks? You know everyone would lie for him. We really need to get him out of office. Or we will find ourselves in war after war for no good reason. I am already hearing about Iran, Syria… Good article, scary guy.
Posted by Lydia Rogers on Oct 23, 2003 at 3:49 PM Oh my. That you would use your own brothers death to push your agenda is just sad. As a greatful recovering alcoholic i’d laugh in the face of this story if it didn’t demean the dead.
Posted by per on Oct 24, 2003 at 8:03 PM I would rather have a FALL FRONTAL LOBOTOMY than a FALL BOTTLE IN FRONT OF ME.OK dudes look give each other a break and pray for the man cos i do know this that the power of pray can and will move mountains. LORD please have MR BUSH make sure of his foundation in you and that when he crys out to you let him please ask for WISDOM to guide his awsome nation. AMERICA REMEMBER WHY you were SAVED. only because of our amazen DADS LOVE for US. john 3-16 amen my fellow mates in CHRISTour LORD JESUS. May the love and anointing of the HOLYSPIRIT Flow down apon you all though our LOVEING DAD The mighty HOLY FATHER. THANK YOU JESUS FOR answering my plea your adopted son marky from the real down under see ya mates and GOD BLESS.
Posted by mark on Nov 5, 2003 at 12:55 AM I hear the Ring of Truth here, as a long-time serious student of the condition described.
Posted by Walter G on Nov 14, 2003 at 7:22 AM “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”...you are an idiot. I am a sober person who drank heavily for 17 years and there are tons of us. Your article is so one sided it’s not even funny. And to paint Republicans as “the rich”- everyone knows damn well there are just as many rich liberals. Instead of journalism maybe you should spend a few years bartending so you’ll learn to see drinking from a different perspective from that of a 12 year old.
Posted by Tom on Nov 18, 2003 at 4:35 PM AA should not be drawn into political, religious, personal or any other controversy - it takes the focus of offering hope to active alcoholics who come in our doors only as a last resort, and whose lives are in the balance.
GWBush, stole America’s presidency, our Constitutional Rights, our valued rule of law - he is wrecking almost all we cherish and the World is much worse for his hubris and idiocy. That, is another matter - our votes and courage to confront this maniac in the media and trust that the ultimate Power has a way to deal with him - comforts me personally.
Posted by Bob R. on Nov 21, 2003 at 8:03 AM Alan, I’m a grateful recovering alcoholic and AA saved my life. I’m very disappointed that you drag AA’s name into a below the belt mud fight of your own. I don’t agree with Bush’s policy in any way, and I agree with you on many terms, but there is a very sound reason for AA to stay out of public controversy. I know you’re not a spokesperson for AA and neither am I, in fact there is none. The fact remains that you are contributing to a negative image of AA and in that way perhaps creating a barrier for the sick and suffering alcoholic to seek help in AA. I know your intentions are good but what is it they say about good intentions ? the road to hell is paved with’em.
respect, s
Posted by sean on Nov 21, 2003 at 8:06 PM While I’d like to think Bush is reasonably intelligent, and thus deserving of having aquired those high status degrees, isn’t it more likely that Harvard and Yale would have moved Heaven and Earth to make certain that the favored son of George H. W. Bush gratuated and performd “adaquately?”
Posted by Michael Waters on Dec 1, 2003 at 4:04 AM “Bush was sitting on a couch in the private residence section of the White House, watching a US football game alone, when he chomped a pretzel that went down the wrong way, causing him to briefly lose consciousness…” BUSH: “I woke up, and there was Barney and Spot showing a lot of concern. I didn’t realize what happened until I looked into the mirror—my glasses cut the side of my face,” Bush also suffered a cut lip.
-I know a lot of people who have passed out while watching sports and eating pretzel’s too.
Posted by joe on Dec 4, 2003 at 10:08 PM Great article! I would be interested to hear why some of the posters believe that GWB is still drinking.
Posted by MS on Dec 29, 2003 at 6:10 PM As an alcoholic, I can tell you that only the person can claim their alcoholism. We have no right to decide if the man is an alcoholic. Personally, I think to label G. Bush an alcoholic is too kind. Another interesting detail is that alcoholism is a disease of perception, and that i can attest to. If he is an alcoholic, this is very scary - an alcoholic who lacks humility and tries to run the show, needs stable, openminded, experienced guidance to get through life. The whole thing is very interesting.
Posted by amanda on Jan 17, 2004 at 12:19 AM Very compelling. Here’s a link to another like-minded article.
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/39190.php
Is the President nuts?
by just one little human ï Thursday March 27, 2003 at 10:07 PM“Is The ‘President’ Nuts?” asks Carol Wolman, M.D. “Many people, inside and especially outside this country, believe that the American president is nuts, and is taking the world on a suicidal path.” [Counterpunch Oct. 2, 2002]
Posted by mah on Jan 22, 2004 at 5:13 PM Excellent article. I’m only sorry I didn’t read it when it was written.
Posted by Julie on Jan 24, 2004 at 11:52 PM While I thoroughly enjoyed this article, for the points to ponder it brings up, as well as the resulting posts in the forum-I have a question, for any readers of this forum who are employed in the medical fields: It is continuously stated (here and elsewhere) that alcoholism is a “disease”; but doesn’t the identification of a “disease” require the subsequent identification of a “pathogen”? If so, why has no one identified the pathogen? It seems to logically follow, that this is NOT a disease. Plus, I came from an alcoholic family (big time!) I am a member of the Intertnational High IQ society, as well as it’s precursor the New York High IQ society, and I’m kind of curious about the fact that I did not start drinking until the age of 33, (I’m 44 now), I regularly polish off a quart of vodka a week, and yet my IQ scores have not declined one point, since then. Any thoughts?
Posted by tim bruce on Jan 28, 2004 at 6:52 AM While I thoroughly enjoyed this article, for the points to ponder it brings up, as well as the resulting posts in the forum-I have a question, for any readers of this forum who are employed in the medical fields: It is continuously stated (here and elsewhere) that alcoholism is a “disease”; but doesn’t the identification of a “disease” require the subsequent identification of a “pathogen”? If so, why has no one identified the pathogen? It seems to logically follow, that this is NOT a disease. Plus, I came from an alcoholic family (big time!) I am a member of the Intertnational High IQ society, as well as it’s precursor the New York High IQ society, and I’m kind of curious about the fact that I did not start drinking until the age of 33, (I’m 44 now), I regularly polish off a quart of vodka a week, and yet my IQ scores have not declined one point, since then. Any thoughts?
Posted by tim bruce on Jan 28, 2004 at 6:53 AM Why does Bush have to be an alcoholic? Isn’t he simply a prick?
Posted by daniel on Jan 29, 2004 at 11:37 AM Mr. Bisbort , You are not an “enabler"of a dry drunk, but a “willing victim” of terrorism.
G. Bush has kept this country safe during His watch.
Do you forget 9/11 ?( That was not about oil.)
I believe that for more than 2 year’s , Mr. Bush has been preventing more attack’s.
Posted by Joyce T. McKinnon on Feb 1, 2004 at 5:43 AM Ms. McKinnon, President Bush has launched two invasions. One killed tens of thousands of Afghanis simply by population displacement and halting food convoys, not counting direct “collateral damage.”
Also, the conflict your country initiated in Iraq has killed more innocent Iraqi civilians in the past ten months than Hussein has killed in at least the past five years.
So if groups like al-Qaeda were angry with U.S. foreign policy in 2001, I can hardly imagine their rage now. Bushís rampage has placed Americans into a danger greater than any it’s known since 1962. And I donít mean those poor servicemen and servicewomen struggling in Iraq: the targets of future terrorism will doubtless be American civilians on American soil.
I am truly frightened for your country.
Posted by John McLeod on Feb 10, 2004 at 10:31 AM Alan, man, hope you are still reading the responses. Sorry to reach you this way but your numerous columns in other outlets don’t include an e-mail link.
You probably don’t remember, so I’ll prod you. We had a gig together at the Journal of the National Cancer Institute back in 1990. Last time we saw each other was at Maggie’s dinner that summer, as you moved on to some other gig.
Thought your article on dry drunk was good. Had heard about it for awhile but hadn’t read it or realized it was you who wrote it.
I agree with what you’re saying, basically. What I do is connect it to the mental problems most every president in my lifetime has had…and indeed many presidents have had mental problems. Clinton and his sexual addiction. Reagan was probably suffering the effects of Alzheimer’s earlier than any contemporary history reports. Trick Dick had too many things wrong with him to count. How about revelations about the drug cocktail Kennedy regularly took, and the drive engendered by his belief he was sure to have a short life and therefore needed to accomplish much ASAP?
There’s a “theme running through history” piece here if you can puzzle it out.
Anyway, I’ve thought of you from time to time over the years. Miss your dry wit. And you are walking the walk out there in writer’s land. I’ve opted for tech writing, trying to facilitate the transfer of know-how so folks don’t electrocute themselves, etc. Finger in the dike, you know.
My apologies to anyone out there who’s pissed I posted this…like I said, I worked with the guy and this is the only quick way I found to send him a howdy.
Posted by Randy Gentry on Mar 11, 2004 at 3:25 PM As a recovering alcoholic of over 18 years now and someone who closely worked with Gerge Bush and his father back in the early 80s, I find your article misinformed and very inaccurate. In A.A. we have many slogans. One, which I feel applies to you and your article, is that it is most inappropriate for you to be taking someone else’s inventory!
Posted by Joe Shook on Mar 25, 2004 at 2:29 AM If any of you are interested in a more detailed historical analysis of this behavior pattern, check out “Vessels of Rage, Engines of Power: The Secret History of Alcoholism” by James Graham. Or, if you’re busy, just read the comments about the book on Amazon. To all you skeptics out there: Keep in mind that the “dry drunk” behaviors CAN be attributed more or less to everyone at various times in their lives, but what indicates an alcoholic’s pattern is the DEGREE and PERSISTENCE of these antisocial behaviors. As far as I know, Bush never had to undergo any periodic drug & alcohol screening like most government workers are required to do, so we may never know for sure.
Posted by shale on Mar 28, 2004 at 9:02 PM As an alcoholic sober more than 18 years, I find the “dry drunk” theory very plausible. Most alkies who try to stay well on their own end up with this problem. But, I was discouraged to see things like “A.A. says:” followed by something I’ve never read anywhere. That is not a good thing. I doubt he is drinking now. If he was HALF the drunk I was, he could not carry out his daily duties. But yes, he could certainly be in the running to be called a “Dry Drunk”. It is also disheartening to read how much ignorance stills abounds regarding alcoholism and people with axes to grind about AA for one reason or another. lighten up and open your mind a little. no other approach has ever helped so many
Posted by max on Apr 6, 2004 at 6:23 PM I am a sober member of AA, in my 20th year. Your story may be timely, and is certainly interesting, if not more. May I remind you however that we in
The Program believe that it is up to the alcoholic to admit his/her powerlessness, and not for outsiders however well meaning to “...take their inventory” as we say, that is to point to anyone and say you are a drunk. Intervention is special and usually confined to family members, although some corporations attempt it. Further, I suggest that you have really not tied together all the dots. You make some leaps of “faith”, but I leave that for others to think about. There are matters in Bush’s early behavior that are troubling such as his alleged mistreatment of animal life at an early age. I have heard more well-founded analysis on that matter than the alcohol.
For the record, I am vehemently opposed to Mr Bush and will happily vote against him this time out, as I did the last time. Still, I prefer that he be ousted on his record and action discernable by everyone.
Thank you.
Posted by Irwin M on Apr 28, 2004 at 3:22 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Alan Bisbort
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
