As the latter two sentences in this waste-of-time-space-and-oxygen posting strongly and correctly suggest, there is absolutely nothing that can be definitively inferred from this picture. Postings like this, which vaguely suggest presidential impropriety but utterly fail to demonstrate wrongdoing, merely reduce the credibility of G.W.'s more relevant -and less impulsive- critics. Given the volume of ACTUAL wrongdoing that can be cited from G.W.'s record, you should have no trouble finding something worthy to discuss on here.

I would put this posting at about the same level as the, "Oh-my-God-Bill-Clinton-was-seen-speaking-to-a-female-human-being-
he-is-a-womanizing-sex-a-holic!!!" blogs you tend to find on more conservative venues.

Matthew hits it squarely on the head.

Given his tendency to do so much worse than just IGNORE his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution"..., to actively trample it, we should be shouting his REAL crimes from the rooftops, and leave such trivialities for the Paris Hiltons of the planet.

Yeah. I mean, I hate Bush as much as anyone can, but attacks like this are too reminiscent of O'Reilly to take seriously. Kind of shameful for the MoJo blog, I'd say. I was hoping when I looked at comments that I wouldn't find a long list of typical tomato-throwing liberals pelting Bush with insults. At least some of us know how to pick our battles.

The picture does confirm the rumours that the German leader does find Bush to be charming as a man. Apparently they really get along. I agree with the other posts about how worthless this picture is. There are more exciting things to talk about, like the LA County Sheriff being bribed to let Paris out early against the Judge's orders.

I don't think this picture and this report are as big a waste of time as many here are suggesting. After all, Clinton was impeached over an element of sexual misconduct. Sad to say, it's the perception of a President's personal character that tends to galvanize criticism against him.

This really means almost nothing in the context of the President's wars, his devotion to corporate power, and his denial of reality when it comes to global warming. But it may be one of the things that can be used to help pin him down. I would be interested in seeing someone hit up the White House press secretary with a few pointed questions about why the President was enjoying an alcoholic beverage.

If this were a Democratic president in a similar position, you can bet Karl Rove would be making hay of it. Given that Rove and co. have been winning over the past six years, it doesn't hurt to take a page from their playbook. What works is what works.

Well many have noted that Bush was drinking again so this ploy of near beer is not surprising. He was out of the country and his watch dogs were not always with him. Seems curious that he missed early morning meetings 2 days in a row due to mysterious stomach problems. I think George slips off the wagon regularly and no wonder with all the problems he has made for himself. If you have ever been around an alcoholic you know the drill. Sober them up and keep-em moving and hope for the best.

Yes, Dave. Get a life and let the man enjoy the ice cold beverage of his choice.

If he is drinking again, that is highly likely to cause bad judgement. If his judgement is bad, that becomes our problem. I think we have every right to know if he is drinking again. He is not a private citizen. He does not have the luxury of enjoying an "ice cold beverage" in peace if his drinking effects his preformance as the President.

I have never found any solid evidence that Bush suffers from alcoholism. I'm not saying he doesn't, just that I have never seen any evidence of addiction, as opposed to abuse. If he is addicted, he shouldn't be near that stuff. If he was an abuser that found better ways to deal with stress, etc., then there is no problem with his drinking a near-beer or any beer.

That's the 1st pix of the man that doesn't make me gag...it's actually making me thirsty! Yeah beer! ( if a beverage that has 0.05% alcohol can really be called beer...)

Bush himself admitted he had a serious problem with alcohol and that he turned to his faith to save him. This was a central narritive in his election campaign. We don't need to find evidence of abuse because we have his own word on it. If he is drinking again, the American people have every right to know.

Diane, you are right. But it is so much fun to gossip about another person's human failings, it makes us feel better as long as we do not talk about our own secret life challenges. People enjoyed to talk about Bubba's "demons" more.

Regarding Bush's drinking, who cares as long as he doesn't make any decisions while he is drunk, or drives a vehicle, like our darling Paris. Bush doesn't preach against alcohol, so he is not a hypocrite on this issue. I think that did not have a true addiction to alcohol, when one considers how easily he gave it up, but then again may be it was divine intervention. Progressives sometimes get confused, they think that they are "Prohibitionists". I agree with many of the posts, let us talk about something else, like the Supreme Court appointment coming up at the end of this term.

We don't know that he is not making decisions while he is drunk. This man is commander-in-chief. We know that his administration, again, by his own word, is considering military action against Iran. I would really prefer that a sober man makes that decision. I am hardly a prohibitionist, but I do think I have a citizen's right to know if our President is doing something that impairs his judgement.

Christian, the planned military action against Iran is because the Zionists through their lobby group AIPAC has demanded that their puppets perform for the money. The Speaker of the House took out of the bill, that Congress would have to give the OK for such actions. In otherwords, The Speaker gave Bush the OK after meeting with AIPAC.

Christian wrote: "I do think I have a citizen's right to know if our President is doing something that impairs his judgement."

Some folks thought they had a citizen's ritht to know if Bill Clinton was parking his little Chevy in some garage other than his own.

If the Citizens of the USofA would rise up and Demand that the US Congress does it's Constitutional duty, and declare an honest-to-God war before they allow the US military to invade a foreign nation and overthrow it's government, then decisions made by the chief executive would be of far less consequence, on the whole.
Instead, we've sat by and let them hand their authority/responsibility for such decisions off for over half a century now, and how can you possibly quantify how much it's cost us, and the world?
It's time WE put a stop to it, by demanding that Congress go on record with a declaration of war in any future military actions of this sort, and not allow them to do some shuck & jive bullshit like they did when they turned any decision about invading Iraq over to George Dubya Bush.

Bush was talking about going after Iran long before Speaker Pelosi met with AIPAC. In any case, he is still the commander in chief and would be the one to make the decision--he is "the decider" and "the commander guy," if you will. I would prefer that he make that decision with a sober mind.

The decision on Iran has already been made by AIPAC. AIPAC's puppets in both parties will carry it out. The American people will be the losers. No more American blood for Israel.

Regardless if this is useless or not, one must realize that the blog did not start off with a falsehood. To tell you the truth, the first set of photos I seen were blurred and I did not think he was drinking a buckler. So in many ways, MOJ gave us a clearer picture to keep us from jumping over board.

Regardless what the others think, congrats on keep it straight, Dave!

I am 48 years old and have had my share of troubles with alcohol. The only people I have EVER seen drinking low alcohol beer are Alcoholics that have something to do that intereferes with their usual drinking routine. This photo is another red flag.

What I infer from the photo is that Bush drinks like a sissy. Then again, he is a sissy, still tied to Barbara's apron strings and still living in Poppy's shadow, not that he cast a long one. But I agree with other posters in that we have other things of import to discuss, for example, his recent signature on a piece of legislation that gives him complete control of our government - all three branches - if we're attacked again. I feel more confident already. That we'll be attacked, that is. After all, 9/11 breathed new life into a still-born presidency and Osama is priceless to GWB as a bogeyman to trot out whenever he needs to scare American cowards or influence an election. If Bush & Company need a little "diversion" to hang on to power a little longer, doggone it, we'll just have to sacrifice a few thousand more heroes. I'm thinking that the attack we'll be in Sacremento. Bush doesn't like Arnold any more -- he's drifted away from the fold, as it were. I'm sure Karl has a foolproof plan (Bush obviously won't understand it.).

Odd, that the label of the "near-beer" is turned at just the perfect angle for the photo to pick up it's label. Hmmmm, could it be that the contents of the glass are not from this red herring prop, but from a true beer? For those who believe that Monica "forgot" to send the dress to the cleaners, and "accidentally" divulged her trysts with Bill to her friend Linda, this comment may seem just another conspiracy theory. Oh, well, the bottom line is that the Shrub couldn't make decisions that are a lot worse than the ones he's already made, or are allowing others to make for him. I agree, let's focus on the crap that matters...He's given us a lot to work with.

The funny thing is that a near beer has less alcoholic content than a coca-cola. Coke comes in at 1% alcohol . However as any good member of Alcoholics Anonymous will tell you it is better to leave the near beer alone. In some areas that is considered a slip.

The next morning, after W Bush had enjoyed the cool drink of his choice Bush had a stomach ache that kept him away from the G8 meetings for the morning. A beer even .o5% such as this beer was -still packed a punch that kept him sick & out of sorts for a day...

I don't trust a man who doesn't drink. Edwards is my man, a Bourbon drinking man, not a common Whisky drinker like Obama. Ms. Clinton is one of those elite wine drinkers. Needless to say, Bush is a beer drinker. Edwards is a true southern gentleman.

Bush is what is known as a “dry drunk” in the world of alcoholics. That means that he went cold turkey - probably when Laura gave him an ultimatum in 1980 or thereabouts — and has no ongoing support group that we know of. Instead of AA it seems that Bush might have turned to religion to help him stop drinking. I believe that it IS important for us to know how he handles this addiction. It takes an enormous amount of psychic energy for an addict to stay off the booze in the way that Bush is doing it. In this culture, we have a rather benign attitude toward alcohol. What would we think if Bush had been a heroin addict?

..."Or should we get a life and just let the guy enjoy the ice cold beverage of his choosing"? Yes.

Just stay focused on the truth about his assaults on democracy and continue to draw distictions between our leader and the people--we will need the rest of the world when he is gone.

Mari, we much rather talk about something that is closer to home, our projections. Most of us have problems and we enjoy it when we get to gossip about somebody else's. Look at all the posts this distraction has received. Sure, this problem is insignificant on the political scene, but very significant amongst our lives and those of our relatives and friends who are stoners, dopers and drunks. Here's one to you Jack Daniels. (PS, I can stop anytime, so I am not a drunk). If I had as much stress as the office of the Prez, I would be buzzed some of time, just like good old Prez. Lyndon Johnson who was known to have a Jack Daniels as well.

Bush is in good company. A Belgian newscaster apologized on Tuesday for suggesting French President Nicolas Sarkozy was drunk in footage shot at the G8 summit that ranks among the top video clips on the YouTube website. Apparently the G8 leaders really know how to party.

AA literature is full of rational thinking on these topics. In fact, there is a pamphlet about how AA is not a psychiatric organization and as such, its members should not exhort one another to "throw out those durned pills!" as they once did.

I never got drunk from fake beer when I was drinking, and now that I have 20 yrs sober, I love drinking fake beer without having to worry I'm going to fall off the wagon.

Fake beer is fine for some sober people. But this president is not sober by any stretch of the imagination. There is nothing trivial or stupid about publishing an article about him drinking fake beer, because he's the most powerful mass-murderer on our planet right now. Furthermore, in the face of an absolute news blackout by his administration, this story emphasizes the contempt his junta has for the press.

I agree that this is not a trivial issue, and in fact it is completely our business to know what the president is up to at such an important summit. The fact that he missed meetings the day after he was seen drinking whatever kind of alcohol is a travesty. This isn't high school, but he sure acts like it is. Bush is not only a disaster for us and the rest of the world, he's an embarrassment.

I've never drank any non alcohol beer or low-alcohol beer but I do wonder how it the hell his glass of whatever it was had such a head on it. Even 3.2 beer can't make a head like that.
What's the difference, who could tell if the man was drunk or sober. He's a stupid ass either way.