Originally Posted By RoadTrip One of my birthday presents from Ann was George W. Bush's "Decision Points". She heard me talking about wanting to read it almost every time we were in a bookstore, but I was unwilling to spend $25 on Bush. I figured I would wait until it came out in paperback. Ann knew I wanted to read it so she bought it for my birthday. Now you may wonder why RT would want to read a Bush autobiography. The answer is very simple. I spent 8 years wondering what the hell Bush was thinking. Now I'll maybe find out!
Originally Posted By SuperDry I've read the book. One observation I'd make is that a lot of what he talks about is very one-sided. That is, there's not much that he says that is blatantly untrue, but if you used this as your only source of history for the Bush Administration, you'd come away with an unwarrantably-positive view. In many of the chapters, I'd remember significant additional information that if considered, would put things in a very different light. I was able to do so because I lived through the time covered by the book, and can remember details of the events as they happened. I'd make the same comments about the book that Bill Clinton wrote about his presidency: there was nothing that rose to the level of an outright lie, but if you lived through the history of the time, there was plenty that you could recognize as benefiting from "selective memory."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I never had any illusions that the book would give an unbiased review of the Bush presidency. What I think it may explain is why he made some of the decisions that he did. What was the 'reality' in his mind that led him to make some of the decisions that he did? I think the biases and blind-spots evident in the book are likely going to be the same biases and blind spots that were present when he originally made the decision. I don't think Bush or any other president TRIES to make poor decisions. What I am interested in is the thought process that caused him to make some of the decisions he made... that made him feel the alternative selected was truly what was best for the country when it left most of us wondering what the hell he was thinking. I hope it provides some insight to help answer "President Bush... what color is the sky in your world?"
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'd make the same comments about the book that Bill Clinton wrote about his presidency: there was nothing that rose to the level of an outright lie, but if you lived through the history of the time, there was plenty that you could recognize as benefiting from "selective memory.">> Yes, I read "My Life" and would agree with that. One difference between Clinton and Bush is readily apparent just from glancing at the book... Clinton's book was over 1,000 pages in a small font; Bush's is 477 pages in a large font. I think this may be indicative of some of the differences in decision-making between the two men. Where Clinton analyzed the hell out of every decision he was presented with (perhaps even over-analyzing); Bush seemed to use a CliffsNotes style of decision-making.
Originally Posted By dshyates I believe that for the most part, there was no thought process put into the decisions may by Bush. I think he listened to the briefing, asked his advisors what they thought he should do, and went with their assessment. The real problem reveals itself when those advisors are Chaney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft.
Originally Posted By Mickeymouseclub I hope you are happy with your birthday gift and not to be saying anything disrespectful...but I always wonder why we continue to making rich people richer. We all do it all the time. I guess it would be nice to laugh my way to the bank...
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I hope you are happy with your birthday gift>> Yes I am happy with it... it is very much a book I wanted to read. I didn't want to give money to Bush. But if Ann was OK with it, what the heck? Clinton is pretty darned rich too, but I had no problem with buying his book. I have no problem with the rich. I like rich people. I like the way they live. I like the way I live when I'm with them. (Thank you Sound of Music). I do think they should pay an appropriate amount of income taxes, which for the most part they don't do at present. But the majority of the really rich are rich because they've made all of our lives better. I will never begrudge Steve Jobs or Bill Gates one dime of their wealth. Or the guys behind Google and Facebook, whoever they are. No class warfare for me. I think the rich are fine and dandy. I just also think they should face a tax burden commensurate with their wealth.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper The one other notable difference between Clinton's book and Bush's book is that Clinton's comes wrapped in a brown paper cover and can only be purchased from an Adult Bookstore. Can someone please tell me why Weiner had to step down but Clinton did not? Are we to expect less from the President? I'm still lost as to what happened there.
Originally Posted By dshyates Wahoo, I think it has more to do with timing and our new era of fake outrage. That I do believe started, interestingly enough, with Bill Clinton's affair. Everyone knew at the time the GOP weren't really outraged over the affair considering they had their own cheater (Newt) sitting at the head of the GOP table. Now it's fake outrage 24/7 in the news cycle. Our government is eating itself alive, and the idiot tea party folks are pouring gas on the fire. They believe they are conservative constitutionalist but their plan leads to true anarchy. Good job you poor simple morons.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Most problems facing this country are complex, unwieldy, open to lots of interpretation. No clear "right" or "wrong" choices much of the time. It's overwhelming. And then a story shows up where it's easy to choose a side, or tsk! tsk! in judgement, and the media (and the audience) are all over it. It is kind of amazing that the Bush Administration launched the war in Iraq based on falsehoods, and not only did nobody ever face a trial for that, no one even lost a job over it. But if they had tweeted their private parts, g'bye! THAT gets people outraged. War and death? whateva...
Originally Posted By DyGDisney That's the truth. I don't care what Clinton did in privacy, I'm not his wife. He was a pretty darn good president...which upset the Republicans I'd say because they had to find something to pick at him about. But start a war based on false premises, possibly for the purpose of boosting one's own historical standing, and no one does a thing about it. I do think a lot of American people like to be at war. Then they can be all patriotic and pro-military. It gives them someone to root for. Problem is, the "us vs them" mentality. Innocent women and children have been killed in the middle east by our military, and all we can count are the number of US soldiers dead.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It is kind of amazing that the Bush Administration launched the war in Iraq based on falsehoods, and not only did nobody ever face a trial for that, no one even lost a job over it. > I'm still shaking my head over that one. Also, never underestimate the power of pictures. If we'd only HEARD that Weiner texted pics of himself (but never actually had sex with) these women, I think he'd still be in office. Consider David Vitter - Republican senator from Louisiana. He was caught using a prostitution service (meaning he used them multiple times) and not only did NO Republicans call on him to step down, which really makes their "outrage" over Weiner seem phony, he got re-elected and is still in office. This despite the fact that not only was there actual sex with multiple women not-his-wife, it's flat-out illegal to patronize a prostitute. If there had been pictures or video of him with one of these hookers, I think he'd have been toast too. But there wasn't. No visuals of a bare chest or bulging briefs. That's what did Weiner in.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper There may not have been photographic evidence of the Clinton mess but the stories about cigars didn't leave much to the imagination. Both parties (and men in power, in general) are guilty of crappy behavior. And, maybe no one lost a job because of the Bush doctrine but I'd say it is safe to say that McCain lost an election because of it.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "There may not have been photographic evidence of the Clinton mess but the stories about cigars didn't leave much to the imagination." Still - do you think if there had BEEN a picture of him, Monica, and a cigar that it wouldn't have been worse? "And, maybe no one lost a job because of the Bush doctrine but I'd say it is safe to say that McCain lost an election because of it." I'd say he lost partly because of that and partly because of a). his flailing response to the economic meltdown, and b). his choosing a Veep candidate who, when asked about it, clearly had no clue what the Bush doctrine WAS.
Originally Posted By fkurucz When I saw the title of this thread my first thought was "Please let this be about George W".
