[quote]Early on in his newly released memoir, George W. Bush writes with great credibility, and a welcome absence of histrionics, about his slow-motion t..."/>
Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
A Careless Man: What the Bush Memoir Reveals
Friday, November 12, 2010 11:12 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Early on in his newly released memoir, George W. Bush writes with great credibility, and a welcome absence of histrionics, about his slow-motion turn toward faith. There was no fiery epiphany. There was a growing comfort with the calming release of prayer, a gradual appreciation of the moral truths contained in the Bible. There were doubts too. "If you haven't doubted, you probably haven't thought very hard about what you believe," [sounds like his Presidency!] he writes. And that principle is very much in evidence when he makes the first major decision of his presidency, in favor of federal funding for research on existing stem-cell lines but not for raiding frozen embryos — potential lives, he believes — to harvest their cells. To reach that decision, Bush conducted a White House seminar that included talks with advocates, brilliant ones, on all sides of the issue. "The conversations fascinated me," he writes. "The more I learned, the more questions I had." Whatever you think of his policy, the process was impeccable. I mention this not only because it reveals Bush at his best but because it was so much at variance with the rest of his presidency. The presidential memoir is among the more dreadful of literary forms. Most of them are far too long, and suffocating for the heavy woolen tone of false modesty that swaddles the egomania at the heart of the matter. They are defensive, evasive and stiff. Bush's effort is all that, but better than most. It reads well. The anecdotes are occasionally revealing. There is emotion, and it is real. The pace is brisk enough to delude the unwary reader into a suspension of disbelief at first, but gradually the weakness of this chatty strategy becomes clear: Bush breezes through fundamental and earth-shattering decisions without slowing down to acknowledge their moral complexity. At the most important moments of his presidency — most notably, the decision to go to war in Iraq — he refuses to honestly consider opposing points of view or see the long-term, ancillary effects of what he is deciding. Some of the decisions he makes are wise, like the belated move toward a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. In other cases, like Hurricane Katrina, he successfully defends his efforts and candidly acknowledges his mistakes. But as the pages turn, a familiar sense of the man unfurls: impatient, petulant, shallow — quite the opposite of the stem-cell decider. Bush writes that his true feelings as he found out about the 9/11 attacks — and chose to sit, famously impassive, as a Florida class read "The Pet Goat" — were, "My blood was boiling. We were going to find out who did this, and kick their ass." It was an understandable reaction, but an emotion he never quite transcended or transformed into strategic thought. In the book, Bush never stops to wonder if, maybe, his team should have spent more time focusing on al-Qaeda before Sept. 11 — as the outgoing Clinton national-security team had strongly suggested — or whether he should have taken more seriously the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, memo from the CIA warning of an al-Qaeda attack on the homeland. And later, he never stops to wonder if the U.N. inspectors, whom Saddam Hussein had allowed back into Iraq, were not finding weapons of mass destruction because, maybe, uh, the WMD didn't exist. And still later, he expresses shock at the Abu Ghraib abuses without ever admitting — or, perhaps, finding out — that practices like enforced nudity, the use of dogs and stress positions had become common. And of course he never acknowledges the subsequent reporting, by multiple news outlets, that proved Abu Ghraib was different from other interrogation sites only in that photos were taken. In a particularly appalling moment, Bush simply decides to permit waterboarding enemy detainees because, as he told Matt Lauer, "the lawyer said it was legal." (His belief in the efficacy of torture is also at variance with other accounts, especially those provided by FBI agents, but he doesn't acknowledge that either.)
Friday, November 12, 2010 11:16 AM
BLUEHANDEDMENACE
Friday, November 12, 2010 11:28 AM
ESTEAD
Friday, November 12, 2010 11:43 AM
Friday, November 12, 2010 11:49 AM
Friday, November 12, 2010 12:10 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Quote:When Crown Publishing inked a deal with George W. Bush for his memoirs, the publisher knew it wasn't getting Faulkner. But the book, at least, promises "gripping, never-before-heard detail" about the former president's key decisions, offering to bring readers "aboard Air Force One on 9/11, in the hours after America's most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor; at the head of the table in the Situation Room in the moments before launching the war in Iraq," and other undisclosed and weighty locations. Crown also got a mash-up of worn-out anecdotes from previously published memoirs written by his subordinates, from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections. He took equal license in lifting from nonfiction books about his presidency or newspaper or magazine articles from the time. Far from shedding light on how the president approached the crucial "decision points" of his presidency, the clip jobs illuminate something shallower and less surprising about Bush's character: He's too lazy to write his own memoir. Bush, on his book tour, makes much of the fact that he largely wrote the book himself, guffawing that critics who suspected he didn't know how to read are now getting a comeuppance. Not only does Bush know how to read, it turns out, he knows how to Google, too. Or his assistant does. Bush notes in his acknowledgments that "[m]uch of the research for this book was conducted by the brilliant and tireless Peter Rough. Peter spent the past 18 months digging through archives, searching the internet[s], and sifting through reams of paper." Bush also collaborated on the book with his former speechwriter, Christopher Michel.
Friday, November 12, 2010 12:11 PM
Quote:Originally posted by estead: Hello Niki, I'm a bit confused here, were you hoping to discuss Time magazine? The quoted author's intentions in writing the article? Or is this just basic trolling? I mean, you state very clearly that you have no intention of reading the memoirs, so I guess I'm just hoping you would provide some clarification as to what type of discussion you were looking to start. Thank you.
Friday, November 12, 2010 12:24 PM
Friday, November 12, 2010 12:29 PM
Friday, November 12, 2010 12:30 PM
Friday, November 12, 2010 12:56 PM
KPO
Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.
Quote:As for what is acceptable under my criteria, I would like to think that if someone wanted to discuss a book, they would read that book and post, not cut and paste another author's opinion. Now, if you wanted to discuss the article, that's entirely different.
Friday, November 12, 2010 1:14 PM
WHOZIT
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: I'm still not sure how to take this. Surely if I'd wanted to discuss Time Magazine, I'd have said something about it, rather than just citing it? Oh, wait a minute...you mean you didn't understand my snark about fantasy? Okay, I'll buy that. Anyway, it's not important. Why would I spend the money OR take the time to read a book by someone for whom I have absolutely no respect, and why wouldn't I get a kick out of articles quoting it and reaffirming my own expectations that he would try to revise history and it would reflect what I have long believed was his shallow, un-self-aware, illiterate personality? I didn't know about the plagarism, however; that's a double giggle, Mike! Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani, Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”, signing off
Friday, November 12, 2010 1:15 PM
Quote:Originally posted by estead: Hello Kwicko, Are you trying to start an internet fight, or is there anything in my post to Niki you would like to address specifically? I would be happy to clarify if you have questions. Thank you.
Friday, November 12, 2010 4:35 PM
PIRATENEWS
John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!
Friday, November 12, 2010 5:17 PM
GEEZER
Keep the Shiny side up
Quote:Originally posted by estead: Hello Kwicko, Are you trying to start an internet fight...
Friday, November 12, 2010 8:07 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: You must be new here. ;)
Saturday, November 13, 2010 2:34 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: You must be new here. ;) LMAO. That made my night! You're an ass, Mikey, but at least you're funny. -F
Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:59 AM
Quote:Sometimes it can develop into genuine discussion
Quote:You must be new here. ;)
Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:10 AM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: You must be new here. ;) LMAO. That made my night! You're an ass, Mikey, but at least you're funny. -F I take that as the highest of compliments, on both counts!
Saturday, November 13, 2010 8:14 AM
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL