Was The bush "Pretzel Incident" in 2002 Booze Induced??

[leftchick]

many certainly suspected so. This is an interesting little tidbit inserted in VF's Jan. 08 Editorial letter...

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/01/graydon200801

<snip>

I wouldn’t want to draw conclusions as to the cause of this recent spate of malapropisms, but a new book by former British foreign secretary Lord Owen may supply a clue. In The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair, and the Intoxication of Power, Owen recalls the time in 2002 when the commander in chief collapsed while sitting on a sofa watching a football game. (Official cause: he’d choked on a pretzel.) The presidential head hit a table on the way to the floor, he suffered an abrasion on the left side of his face, and a blood sample was rushed to Johns Hopkins, in Baltimore. Owen says he was told by a British doctor who had visited Johns Hopkins that lab technicians there found that the blood contained significant amounts of alcohol—this in the body of a man who claims he hasn’t had a drop in more than 20 years.



Hmmmmm

[zabet]

1. No way!

That is just a lie leaked
by the Secret Service to cover
up a near successful assassination
attempt by a terrorist pretzel.

:rofl:

[Javaman]

8. Why do pretzels hate america? nt

[jakem]

23. Bin Laden spiked the pretzels!

will they stop at nothing?!

[Frank Cannon]

2. Every incident in this bozo's term has been booze-induced

Active, raging alcoholism explains every bizarre behavior he exhibits. Yet, you will still see people on this board SWEARING he isn't drinking anymore... because he and the MSM say so. :eyes:

[ThatsMyBarack]

6. ELO Rules

:thumbsup:

[leveymg]

3. He had a pre-cancerous growth removed from his face. These lesions have recurred several times.

http://www.williambowles.info/guests/2005/bush_cancer.html

The compliant corporate media hasn't reported it, because of potential questions about his fitness and side-effects of medications.

[leftchick]

4. didn't the pretzel sore appear

over night? Hence the rush for a cover story?

[leveymg]

5. They should have come up with a more plausible story to explain his facial scars.

They could simply have some out and admitted the truth. Bush, Sr. has the same skin condition, and has survived to be an old man. But, it's not just the skin lesions -- Aktinic Keratoses (AK) -- those, in themselves, are nothing particularly worrying in the short run. It's the medications he's on.

Dubya is visibly incapacitated. It's obvious to anyone who wants to see it.



He's had these lesions removed from various parts of his body at least five times since 2001, but the corporate meia continues to downplay it. Most recently, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/17/bush.moles/index.html

White House: Moles taken from Bush's face benign
POSTED: 5:17 p.m. EST, February 17, 2007
Story Highlights• Tests show the skin growths are not cancerous
• President Bush had two moles removed from his left temple Friday
• Five-minute procedure took place at the White House
• Skin growth removed from neck in 2005, lesion on arm cut out in August

Adjust font size:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Two moles President Bush had removed from his face Friday were benign, White House spokesman Alex Conant said Saturday.

Dermatologist Steve Krivda from Walter Reed Army Medical Center/ National Naval Medical Center and Bush's regular doctor, Richard Tubb, removed the moles from Bush's left temple using a local anesthetic, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Bush has a 1-inch scab on his left temple that is expected to heal in a week to 10 days, but he does not have a bandage, Stanzel said.

He said Bush noticed one mole and had Tubb examine it Monday. Tubb then noticed the second mole and suggested they both be removed. Tests indicated they were not cancerous, according to the White House.

Bush had lesions removed from his face in December 2001 and December 2004. His most recent physical was in August 2006, the White House said.

[guitar man]

7. naw....

...I think he just made the mistake of trying to walk and eat the pretzel at the same time. :rofl:

[Javaman]

9. he* never stopped drinking. period.

a have a "friend" that works with one of the alphabet agencies, if push ever comes to shove, he would gladly testify that moron* still drinks and drinks heavily. He's seen it himself.

[TNOE]

10. If that isn't a punch to the face

I don't know what is. Now, who would punch the president?

His father? Karl Rove? Laura?

[peekaloo]

11. He and Rove were "racing lines" of coke on a coffee table and butted heads.

he's competitive ya know.

:sarcasm:

[BridgeTheGap]

12. Another theory on the pretzel incident...

The pretzel incident took place a few days after Bush said in public, for the second time, that he had seen the first plane hit the WTC on 9/11. The following is from 2004:

Those of us who have held a distrust of the “establishment” for a long time now, yet maintain our fighting spirit, are not so surprised by the machinations of the standing order. We are rightly skeptical of the 9/11 Commission and its ability or inclination to reveal the truth about 9/11.


The current occupant of the White House is due to give his “not under oath” secret testimony soon before the 9/11 Panel – or part of the panel at any rate. One has to wonder if the panel will reflect the trend at work in the media to give Bush a “free pass” on his performance as a leader in responding to 9/11. Nothing more clearly illustrates this phenomenon than the following quotes that issued from the pResident’s own mouth. Their relevance to 9/11 is clear and their implications for Bush are staggering. This must explain why the U.S. media wouldn’t touch these with a 10 foot pole. Journalist Greg Palast was having a beer in the Orlando Airport, waiting for a flight back to England, when he witnessed the first of Bush’s statements on CNN.

“I nearly spit my beer out on the bar when I heard it. I fully expected the American press to jump on this, but the next morning, not a word.” This is what Palast heard and saw on CNN. The quote is still on the official White House web site:


"Well Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower--the TV. was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a terrible accident.’”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/20011204-17.html


This quote could easily be written off as just another stupid “Bushism.” And surely, one would expect his handlers to reiterate the same words uttered by former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer to: “Watch what you say.” So did the press write this statement off for this reason? There are plenty of quotes out there, books of them in fact, that give an indication of the “stature” of this man. But keep in mind that “Bush Dyslexicon” author, Mark Crispin Miller, contends that Bush is not stupid and that he can actually speak quite clearly when its something he cares about, say capital punishment, for example. Now the obvious question becomes (are you listening 9/11 Commission?): Why did Bush essentially repeat the same statement made in Orlando, a month later in California?


"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack.""

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020105-3.html


Obviously, the press has not been willing to hold Bush accountable for these statements or much else, until the pretexts for invading Iraq started unraveling. The use of the events of 9/11 to justify invading Iraq, as well as justifying record deficits and curtailing civil liberties, are reason enough to bring up Bush’s performance in the wake of these tragic events. In fact, the Republicans are running ads touting his leadership abilities supposedly demonstrated in response to 9/11. So yes, it’s time for the media to revisit this man’s performance and ask some questions about the words that issued from his own mouth. And while we may not be privy to Bush’s “not under oath” testimony to the 9/11 Commission, they too should ask some probing questions related to Bush’s public testimony on 9/11. This “leader” needs to be held accountable.

[leftofthedial]

13. Evil Dewars

[Ganja Ninja]

19. Attacked by some Wild Turkey.

[AlCzervik]

14. This was the one of the first pics i ever had on photo bucket---

[ReformedChris]

15. Freaking Brilliant.. I haven't seen that thing before NT

[BridgeTheGap]

20. Right eye in this photo - left eye in the other - must be a conspiracy! n/t

[KansDem]

16. I think his handlers slapped him around a bit...

I've always thought he was doing something or saying something stupid and an "enforcer" was sent to slap him around a bit...to get him in line.

Like after 9/11 when Bush disappeared for three days on AF1. I think he came unglued (the elementary-school video clearly shows he was acting on orders, wondering what to do next), and had to be slapped around a bit more to get him with "the program."

[BridgeTheGap]

22. Yes, probably because of what he was saying in public - read

The pretzel incident took place a few days after Bush said in public, for the second time, that he had seen the first plane hit the WTC on 9/11. The following is from 2004:
From 2004:
The current occupant of the White House is due to give his “not under oath” secret testimony soon before the 9/11 Panel – or part of the panel at any rate. One has to wonder if the panel will reflect the trend at work in the media to give Bush a “free pass” on his performance as a leader in responding to 9/11. Nothing more clearly illustrates this phenomenon than the following quotes that issued from the pResident’s own mouth. Their relevance to 9/11 is clear and their implications for Bush are staggering. This must explain why the U.S. media wouldn’t touch these with a 10 foot pole. Journalist Greg Palast was having a beer in the Orlando Airport, waiting for a flight back to England, when he witnessed the first of Bush’s statements on CNN.

“I nearly spit my beer out on the bar when I heard it. I fully expected the American press to jump on this, but the next morning, not a word.” This is what Palast heard and saw on CNN. The quote is still on the official White House web site:


"Well Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower--the TV. was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a terrible accident.’”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/12/2001120...


This quote could easily be written off as just another stupid “Bushism.” And surely, one would expect his handlers to reiterate the same words uttered by former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer to: “Watch what you say.” So did the press write this statement off for this reason? There are plenty of quotes out there, books of them in fact, that give an indication of the “stature” of this man. But keep in mind that “Bush Dyslexicon” author, Mark Crispin Miller, contends that Bush is not stupid and that he can actually speak quite clearly when its something he cares about, say capital punishment, for example. Now the obvious question becomes (are you listening 9/11 Commission?): Why did Bush essentially repeat the same statement made in Orlando, a month later in California?


"Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack.""

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/2002010...


Obviously, the press has not been willing to hold Bush accountable for these statements or much else, until the pretexts for invading Iraq started unraveling. The use of the events of 9/11 to justify invading Iraq, as well as justifying record deficits and curtailing civil liberties, are reason enough to bring up Bush’s performance in the wake of these tragic events. In fact, the Republicans are running ads touting his leadership abilities supposedly demonstrated in response to 9/11. So yes, it’s time for the media to revisit this man’s performance and ask some questions about the words that issued from his own mouth. And while we may not be privy to Bush’s “not under oath” testimony to the 9/11 Commission, they too should ask some probing questions related to Bush’s public testimony on 9/11. This “leader” needs to be held accountable.

[UTUSN]

17. K&R #1, as in, why has the K&R taken this long?!1 n/t

[warren pease]

18. Probably a factor, but...

At the time, I went to see a doc friend who had spent about 10 years doing ER/trauma work. We grabbed a bunch of pix of the presidential wound off the web and he looked carefully at each one, frequently using a magnifying glass.

After about 20 minutes of this, he rendered a verdict. He said he's seen dozens, probably hundreds, of these kinds of injuries, many on the face and head and, in his professional opinion, he was 99 percent certain that this was -- and I even remember the phrase verbatim -- "an unremarkable example of a wound caused by blunt force trauma."

Asked to translate this into our native tongue, he said something like, "Well, it's obvious that somebody nailed him with a hard right and probably knocked his lights out."

I asked if the official explanation -- that he choked on a pretzel, briefly lost consciousness and fell to the floor, striking his head on a table edge as he collapsed -- was at all believable. He just started laughing and shaking his head.

So Bush could have gotten slobbering drunk, started blubbering and sniveling or getting physically abusive or throwing expensive ceramics around or maybe getting ready to stumble out the door yelling and screaming and blow his dry drunk cover in front of dozens of witnesses...

And a member of the inner circle who was close enough to him to be present for a secret binge decided he couldn't let that happen, couldn't restrain him any other way and had to cold-cock him to keep him from losing it in public.

So that's one possibility. Sounds plausible enough, although I can't really come up with a name for whoever nailed him. I can't see Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld or Powell smacking him around. Maybe Condi?


wp

[leftchick]

21. Laura?

she has a history. ;)

[lutefisk]

25. Laura isn't above "a bit of the old ultra-violence"

If they didn't keep her drugged up there wouldn't be anything left of the little guy.
:spank:

[bdamomma]

24. we all know his so called '"faith" did not cure him.

he is psychotic liar.