The Bush Thread II

[chaseter]

Yeah. 2001 was called the dotcom bubble burst and this one is called the housing market crisis.

[Carcharodon]

I did not know that...but I feel like I should have. Thanks!

[Prison Mike]

I bought Decision Points today. Can't wait to read it!

[hippie_hunter]

I just bought it too, but I have comics to read first. They take priority!

[Hobgoblin]

Bush's Memoirs Lift Quotes and Memories from Previous Memoirs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/1...1.html#s180908

8,672
19,518views
13,550
Read More: Bush Book, Bush Books, Bush Lifted Passages, Bush Memoir, Bush Memoir Plagiarism, Bush Memoir Plagiarized, Bush Plagiarism, Decision Points, George Bush, George Bush Book, George W. Bush, Slidepollajax, Politics News

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.

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

His absence doesn't stop Bush from relating this anecdote: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"

That meeting would sound familiar to Ahmed Rashid, author of "The Mess in Afghanistan", who wrote in the New York Review of Books: "At the airport to receive [Karzai] was the warlord General Mohammad Fahim, a Tajik from the Panjshir Valley .... As the two men shook hands on the tarmac, Fahim looked confused. 'Where are your men?' he asked. Karzai turned to him in his disarmingly gentle manner of speaking. 'Why General," he replied, "you are my men--all of you are Afghans and are my men.'"

Bush's lifting of the anecdote, while disappointing on a literary level, does raise the intriguing possibility that Bush actually read Rashid's article. Doubtful. It was excerpted in the Googleable free intro to his NYRB story. (Still, thinking of Bush browsing the NYRB's website almost makes it worthwhile.)

In a separate case of scene fabrication, though, Bush writes of a comment made by his rival John McCain as if it was said to him directly. "The surge gave [McCain] a chance to create distance between us, but he didn't take it. He had been a longtime advocate of more troops in Iraq, and he supported the new strategy wholeheartedly. "I cannot guarantee success," he said, "But I can guarantee failure if we don't adopt this new strategy." A dramatic and untold coming-together of longtime rivals? Well, not so much. It comes straight from a Washington Post story. McCain was talking to reporters, not to Bush.

In most instances of Bush's literary swiping, he was at least present for the scene. But the point of a memoir is that it is the author's version of events. Bush's book is a collection of other people's versions of events. But that's not what Bush promises readers. "Decision Points is based primarily on my recollections. With help from researchers, I have confirmed my account with government documents, personal interviews, news reports, and other sources, some of which remain classified," he offers. Bush, in his memoir, confesses to authorizing waterboarding, which is a war crime, so the lifting of a few passages might seem like a minor infraction. But Bush's laziness undermines the historical value of the memoir. Bush "recollects" - in a more literal sense of the term - quotes by pulling his and others verbatim from other books, calling into question what he genuinely remembers from the time and casting doubt on any conclusions he draws about what his mindset was at the time.

[Marx]

Hmm...

[Marx]

OFFICIAL GROUND BREAKING ON BUSH PRESIDENTIAL CENTER TODAY
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/111...s-Ground-Today

[Marx]

It looks like W Bush's book will hit 775,000 copies sold in its first week in release.

[8wid]

Famed Charles Manson prosecutor and three time #1 New York Times bestselling author Vincent Bugliosi stars in this most powerful, explosive, and thought-provoking documentary.

In The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, Bugliosi presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq. Bugliosi sets forth the legal architecture and incontrovertible evidence that President Bush took this nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses—a war that has not only caused the deaths of American soldiers but also over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children; cost the United States over one trillion dollars thus far with no end in sight; and alienated many American allies in the Western world.

As a prosecutor who is dedicated to seeking justice, Bugliosi, in his inimitable style, delivers a non-partisan argument, free from party lines and instead based upon hard facts and pure objectivity.

A searing indictment of the President and his administration, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder also outlines a legally credible pathway to holding our highest government officials accountable for their actions, thereby creating a framework for future occupants of the oval office.

Vincent Bugliosi calls for the United States of America to return to the great nation it once was and can be again. He believes the first step to achieving this goal is to bring those responsible for the war in Iraq to justice.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[I'm Old Greg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYot...eature=related

its disturbing i was just watching videos on this, was making me furious how they treat the author of the book trying to belittle him its like watching to bullies in highschool picking on a kid.

A lot needs to be changed in this country its atrocious.

ANYTHING that's questioned needs to have the true answer discovered.

I really wonder if anything will come of this.

[Bunker]

Or everyone could just watch this Frontline doc:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/

[Hurm...]

Originally Posted by I'm Old Greg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYot...eature=related

its disturbing i was just watching videos on this, was making me furious how they treat the author of the book trying to belittle him its like watching to bullies in highschool picking on a kid.

A lot needs to be changed in this country its atrocious.

ANYTHING that's questioned needs to have the true answer discovered.

I really wonder if anything will come of this.

I totally agree. The host is incredibly unprofessional. Pathetic really.

[SuperFerret]

War results in people dying. It's hardly murder.

[Bim]

Originally Posted by I'm Old Greg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtYot...eature=related

its disturbing i was just watching videos on this, was making me furious how they treat the author of the book trying to belittle him its like watching to bullies in highschool picking on a kid.

A lot needs to be changed in this country its atrocious.

ANYTHING that's questioned needs to have the true answer discovered.

I really wonder if anything will come of this.

My sentiments exactly

[CrimsonDeath]

Originally Posted by SuperFerret

War results in people dying. It's hardly murder.

Yeah, but the main reasons sold to the public and Congress turned out to be false, grossly misinformed. I remember watching the news as Bush, Powell and and the rest of them made their case for that war. And I remember getting pissed off that eventually their arguments were essentially lies, and that the best they could hope for would be incompetence. Not angry because I pay my taxes, but angry at the utter waste of the whole thing.

[That-Guy]

Originally Posted by CrimsonDeath

Yeah, but the main reasons sold to the public and Congress turned out to be false, grossly misinformed. I remember watching the news as Bush, Powell and and the rest of them made their case for that war. And I remember getting pissed off that eventually their arguments were essentially lies, and that the best they could hope for would be incompetence. Not angry because I pay my taxes, but angry at the utter waste of the whole thing.

Yep. When you lie to your country and exploit its greatest tragedy just to push them into an unnecessary war to reap profits for the wealthy companies that are your true employers, that is absolutely murder. Actually, it's worse. It's genocide of your own people and of the people you are attacking.

George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all of their cronies SHOULD have been tried for murder, war crimes, etc. The fact that congress tried to impeach Clinton for some skirt chasing but didn't lift a finger to do anything for the thousands of people Bush led to their deaths is despicable and a clear sign that it is the corporations that truly run this country.

[chaseter]

While I agree the extent of the war is pointless and has been mismanaged for nearly 10 years now, Bush and co. were told lies. Bush went off the CIA report that didn't have ample evidence so we went to war and it was approved by the House vote. Most of the people hating on Bush voted for the dang war. They should all be held accountable. Obama is continuing both wars. There are still troops in Iraq and 50,000 will remain there as 'advisors with guns' for who knows how long. We will remain in Afghanistan until 2014 or even later, who knows. Thousands have died under Obama's watch as well. He even had the worst US casualties month in Iraq under his watch. I just find it odd that in every major newspaper, they had a casualty count while Bush was president. As soon as Obama takes over it goes away but more people are dying on his watch. Obama is just as guilty as Bush for allowing thousands to die but of course nobody is going to make that video. If you make a Bush documentary you are going to get more views than if you made a Bush/Obama documentary.

But on the other side, the war got rid of Saddam and has captured many heads of terrorist organizations. Who knows...if we hadn't went to war and killed or captured those people how different the world might be today. Who knows. The most we can do is thank the people that sacrificed their lives to make sure that those things don't happen and I am eternally grateful for that. As Squirrel said, people die in war. All of the soldiers know that risk.

Also...if we are going to seek legal action against Bush Jr...we should also seek it for Obama as I said above and for Clinton:

US military deaths under Clinton and Bush:

While calculating civilian deaths is very difficult, getting numbers for US soldiers killed is easier. However, these numbers are total active duty deaths, including deaths from illness, so they might not be a good reflection of combat related deaths.

Clinton: 7500 (total military active duty military deaths from 1993-2000)

Bush: 8792 (total military active duty deaths from 2001-2006)

Source: Department of Defense report (PDF). Note: This doesn’t include this year or next year. Bush isn’t done yet.

http://technoccult.net/archives/2007...on-and-bush-2/

[RachelDawes]

Originally Posted by chaseter

While I agree the extent of the war is pointless and has been mismanaged for nearly 10 years now, Bush and co. were told lies. Bush went off the CIA report that didn't have ample evidence so we went to war and it was approved by the House vote. Most of the people hating on Bush voted for the dang war. They should all be held accountable. Obama is continuing both wars. There are still troops in Iraq and 50,000 will remain there as 'advisors with guns' for who knows how long. We will remain in Afghanistan until 2014 or even later, who knows. Thousands have died under Obama's watch as well. He even had the worst US casualties month in Iraq under his watch. I just find it odd that in every major newspaper, they had a casualty count while Bush was president. As soon as Obama takes over it goes away but more people are dying on his watch. Obama is just as guilty as Bush for allowing thousands to die but of course nobody is going to make that video. If you make a Bush documentary you are going to get more views than if you made a Bush/Obama documentary.

Obama didn't start the war with Iraq and now that Bush ****ed the place up we can't easily leave.

But on the other side, the war got rid of Saddam and has captured many heads of terrorist organizations. Who knows...if we hadn't went to war and killed or captured those people how different the world might be today. Who knows. The most we can do is thank the people that sacrificed their lives to make sure that those things don't happen and I am eternally grateful for that. As Squirrel said, people die in war. All of the soldiers know that risk.

Also...if we are going to seek legal action against Bush Jr...we should also seek it for Obama as I said above and for Clinton:

http://technoccult.net/archives/2007...on-and-bush-2/

For starters, at least 100,000 Iraqis would probably still be alive today. I'm much less concerned about the deaths of American soldiers (who volunteered to go knowing the risks), than I am with civilian deaths.

[chaseter]

Originally Posted by RachelDawes

Obama didn't start the war with Iraq and now that Bush ****ed the place up we can't easily leave.

I am sure you know all the strategies involved with fighting insurgents and not a state military. Obama is doing a real good job at getting us out by keeping us there. In fact, he increased the number of troops in Afghanistan. Well if we had Obama as President in 2000 instead of Bush, we wouldn't have went to war and Saddam would still be in power and a vast number of terrorists would still be operating. Sounds good to me.

For starters, at least 100,000 Iraqis would probably still be alive today. I'm much less concerned about the deaths of American soldiers (who volunteered to go knowing the risks), than I am with civilian deaths.

Saddam killed nearly 2 million people while he was in power. He killed about 1 million Iraq and Iranian soldiers during the Iraq-Iran war. He killed 1 thousand Kuwaiti nationals. He lead to the death of thousands of Iraq soldiers during the Gulf War. And of course he killed about 100 thousand Kurds. Should we have left him in power? But of course George W. Bush is the Devil.

Was Truman a terrible president? Should someone make a movie about prosecuting Truman for murder?

[Spider-Who?]

we don't agree on much, Chaseter, but we're in full agreement on this topic.

[chaseter]

I now am switching sides just to disagree with you. DEVIL BUSH!

[Excelsior.]

we wouldn't have went to war and Saddam would still be in power

What did Saddam have to do with anything honestly? Bush had to satisfy his dad's wishes, nothing more.

[LOBO3315a]

Saddam tried to have a former President of the United States assainated. While he may not have been directly involved in the planning and execution of the WTC attacks, you can't deny he wasn't on the sidelines, rooting when the towers fell.

Also he was trying to posture and look bigger than he was in regards to WMDs. He would never let the UN weapons inspectors search his palaces, and actively tried to sabotage their monitoring efforts. He would never produce the proof of the destruction of the WMDs we know he did have and used back in the 80's against the Kurds.

There was even evidence that he was aiding and abetting certain terrorists that were leaving Afghanistan when the fighting started there.

He was trying to be one of the 'big dogs'. Unfortunately he got bit, and didn't survive it.

[Matt Mortem]

interesting. I'll have to watch it

[WarBlade]

Originally Posted by LOBO3315a

Saddam tried to have a former President of the United States assainated. While he may not have been directly involved in the planning and execution of the WTC attacks, you can't deny he wasn't on the sidelines, rooting when the towers fell.

Al-Qaeda was enemies of Saddam Hussein. I doubt he was sitting on the sidelines "rooting" for the destruction of the towers. When I imagine myself in his position I reach the conclusion that he may have been dismissive about it, or perhaps disgruntled seeing a thorn in his side suddenly gain a popularity boost. I imagine a grave reaction, not a jubilant one.

Originally Posted by LOBO3315a

Also he was trying to posture and look bigger than he was in regards to WMDs. He would never let the UN weapons inspectors search his palaces, and actively tried to sabotage their monitoring efforts. He would never produce the proof of the destruction of the WMDs we know he did have and used back in the 80's against the Kurds.

It's true the investigations were impeded, however it's just as true that he presented a current state of his assets when things were looking dire. As I recall, the lack of WMDs simply wasn't believed, and the war went ahead anyway.

Originally Posted by LOBO3315a

There was even evidence that he was aiding and abetting certain terrorists that were leaving Afghanistan when the fighting started there.

Link? (non-American source please)