Bush's Book "Decision Points" ... Another Sham

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2010 7:16 PM GMT
    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.

    Instead, Crown 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 job illuminates 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 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 Ahmend Rashid, author of "The Mess in Afghanistan", who wrote: "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 book. Doubtful. It was excerpted in the Googleable New York Review of Books. (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.

    In a final irony, Bush appears to draw heavily from several of Bob Woodward's books and also from Robert Draper's "Dead Certain". The Bush White House called the books' accuracy into question when they were initially published.

    The similarities between the way Bush recollects his and other quotes may be a case of remarkable random chance or evidence that he and his deputies were in an almost supernatural sync. If so, he essentially shares a brain with General Tommy Franks.

    Bush writes: "Tommy told the national security team that he was working to apply the same concept of a light footprint to Iraq...'If we have multiple, highly skilled Special Operations forces identifying targets for precision-guided munitions, we will need fewer conventional grounds forces,' he said. 'That's an important lesson learned from Afghanistan.' I had a lot of concerns. ... I asked the team to keep working on the plan. 'We should remain optimistic that diplomacy and international pressure will succeed in disarming the regime,' I said at the end of the meeting. 'But we cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists. I will not allow that to happen.'"

    Franks, in his memoir American Soldier, writes: "'For example, if we have multiple, highly skilled Special Operations forces identifying targets for precision-guided munitions, we will need fewer conventional ground forces. That's an important lesson learned from Afghanistan.' President Bush's questions continued throughout the briefing.... Before the VTC ended, President Bush addressed us all. 'We should remain optimistic that diplomacy and international pressure will succeed in disarming the regime.' ... The President paused. 'Protecting the security of the United States is my responsibility,' he continued. 'But we cannot allow weapons of mass destruction to fall into the hands of terrorists.' He shook his head. 'I will not allow that to happen.'"

    But if you already bought Bush's book thinking you were getting his own thoughts, you haven't entirely wasted your money. Finding lifted passages in Bush's book is like an Easter egg hunt.

    By: Ryan Grim
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2010 8:16 PM GMT
    HuffPost has a slideshow of 16 sections lifted in their entirety side by side with their source. Hilarious!

    I wonder if Crown Publishing will want any of their money back they paid him?
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2010 8:32 PM GMT
    I'm STILL ashamed that Bush was our president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2010 8:41 PM GMT
    OtterJoq saidI'm STILL ashamed that Bush was our president.

    VICTIMS of crime should not ever feel ashamed.


    You can feel a bit of national embarassment only for his first term. Impartial observers do not consider him to have been legitimately elected the second time.

    Feel violated, not ashamed.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 12, 2010 9:02 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    OtterJoq saidI'm STILL ashamed that Bush was our president.

    VICTIMS of crime should not ever feel ashamed.


    You can feel a bit of national embarassment only for his first term. Impartial observers do not consider him to have been legitimately elected the second time.

    Feel violated, not ashamed.

    Who are these "impartial observers"? The following reports from CNN and NY Times, hardly right-wing shills, both confirm based on subsequent counts, had the Supreme Court allowed recounts as requested by Gore, the result still would have been Bush winning.

    Two questions:
    1) This has been reported, but why do some continue to distort this issue? (I suggest the answer is greater concern for ideology over truth.)

    2) Who exactly are your "impartial observers", and do they provide proof that the counts cited in the following reports are not true? (BTW - not intended to be a challenge to you personally. You may have seen this reported by another group that misrepresented.)

    http://articles.cnn.com/2001-04-04/politics/florida.recount.01_1_ballots-without-presidential-votes-undercounted-ballots-miami-herald-and-usa?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

    http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 12, 2010 11:42 PM GMT
    LOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 1:49 AM GMT
    GQjock saidLOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

    Did you read those links? The court decision did not matter. Bush would have won anyway. Simple facts. Is your ideology causing you to be so blind you cannot comprehend them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 1:53 AM GMT
    Right... Like he was able to read and write. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 2:57 AM GMT
    Okey dokey: I read the links. Either you didn't think I would, or that I would not read past the first paragraph. (Perhaps you didn't read past the first paragraph.)


    It starts out by saying that in the number of districts they reviewed Bush still retained the lead...


    It goes on to say :

    " ...But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ''count all the votes.''

    In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

    More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations.


    Boldface type only added for visibility.

    Commentators on BBC and Cdn news (when we were watching it) were pretty blunt in their analysis when the order came to stop the recount.

    As these commentators were from BBC and CTV, I consider them impartial - because they had no stake in the outcome at all.They didn't care who won - we were just watching.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 4:00 AM GMT
    UpperCanadian saidOkey dokey: I read the links. Either you didn't think I would, or that I would not read past the first paragraph. (Perhaps you didn't read past the first paragraph.)

    What the article stated was that while it was plausible Gore might have won... the operative word being might. As far as the court decision, if it went Gore's way, Bush still would have won. It makes the point that the court selected the winner incorrect. (As far as BBC, I consider them strongly left leaning, as do many here. In fact, I put more credibility in Channel One Moscow / RIA Novosti news.)
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 13, 2010 6:49 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidLOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

    Did you read those links? The court decision did not matter. Bush would have won anyway. Simple facts. Is your ideology causing you to be so blind you cannot comprehend them?


    And in the end after all the spin and lies
    they all got together and said HEY GORE WOULD HAVE WON AFTERALL

    Again you ..... listen to what you wanna hear even though the truth is right there in front of you
    why were they so bent on stopping a count that they would have won anyway???
    ............................Because they KNEW they weren't going to win

    GO FIGGER http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf
  • Webster666

    Posts: 9217

    Nov 13, 2010 7:12 AM GMT
    They want something like $35.00 for it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I'll wait until next week, when it'll be in the $2.00 bin.
    I'm really anxious to find out what happens to "My Pet Goat."


    2vv40tl.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 9:44 AM GMT
    many of you are to Young to remember Jimmy Carter then; thank god for President Reagan.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 10:06 AM GMT
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidLOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

    Did you read those links? The court decision did not matter. Bush would have won anyway. Simple facts. Is your ideology causing you to be so blind you cannot comprehend them?


    And in the end after all the spin and lies
    they all got together and said HEY GORE WOULD HAVE WON AFTERALL

    Again you ..... listen to what you wanna hear even though the truth is right there in front of you
    why were they so bent on stopping a count that they would have won anyway???
    ............................Because they KNEW they weren't going to win

    GO FIGGER http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

    I read everything. It shows under different scenarios, different winners in a very close, imperfect election procedure. But it clearly shows what both the NY Times and CNN reports state. That is, had the court agreed to Gore's specific recount request, Bush still would have won. So there remains two facts:

    1) The court did not "anoint" or "select" Bush.
    2) You remain unable to comprehend this.

    While you have always seemed totally partisan, your stubbornness to face this simple fact completely destroys your credibility an any political discussion. No point in having political discussions with you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 1:22 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidLOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

    Did you read those links? The court decision did not matter. Bush would have won anyway. Simple facts. Is your ideology causing you to be so blind you cannot comprehend them?


    And in the end after all the spin and lies
    they all got together and said HEY GORE WOULD HAVE WON AFTERALL

    Again you ..... listen to what you wanna hear even though the truth is right there in front of you
    why were they so bent on stopping a count that they would have won anyway???
    ............................Because they KNEW they weren't going to win

    GO FIGGER http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

    I read everything. It shows under different scenarios, different winners in a very close, imperfect election procedure. But it clearly shows what both the NY Times and CNN reports state. That is, had the court agreed to Gore's specific recount request, Bush still would have won.


    No. That is NOT what the link YOU posted said - it said in the last paragraph that if the FULL count had gone ahead - Gore might have won. It is posted above and I even highlighted it in bold. It is right in front of you if you look up (waaaay up... and I'll call Rusty)

    Talk about stubborn and willfull denial of what is written icon_rolleyes.gif I thought you able to sustain an intelligent prolonged conversation but once you start arguing black is white, you are no longer worth it.

    Dismissed.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    UpperCanadian said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidLOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

    Did you read those links? The court decision did not matter. Bush would have won anyway. Simple facts. Is your ideology causing you to be so blind you cannot comprehend them?


    And in the end after all the spin and lies
    they all got together and said HEY GORE WOULD HAVE WON AFTERALL

    Again you ..... listen to what you wanna hear even though the truth is right there in front of you
    why were they so bent on stopping a count that they would have won anyway???
    ............................Because they KNEW they weren't going to win

    GO FIGGER http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

    I read everything. It shows under different scenarios, different winners in a very close, imperfect election procedure. But it clearly shows what both the NY Times and CNN reports state. That is, had the court agreed to Gore's specific recount request, Bush still would have won.


    No. That is NOT what the link YOU posted said - it said in the last paragraph that if the FULL count had gone ahead - Gore might have won. It is posted above and I even highlighted it in bold. It is right in front of you if you look up (waaaay up... and I'll call Rusty)

    Talk about stubborn and willfull denial of what is written icon_rolleyes.gif I thought you able to sustain an intelligent prolonged conversation but once you start arguing black is white, you are no longer worth it.

    Dismissed.

    The report you quoted said might. I just repeated it. The other report said if there had been a full recount Gore would have won. But the point I made which is supported by all references, is had there been a partial recount per Gore request, Bush still would have won. Gore did not want to request a full recount because the outcome would have been uncertain. He chose a district favorable to him to make the recount request. Therefore the central premise of the Democrat whining that the court selected or anointed Bush is patently false.
    Now case closed. Bye.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Nov 13, 2010 3:24 PM GMT
    did anyone expect anything different out of this second generation rich fool?

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2937

    Nov 13, 2010 4:01 PM GMT
    A letter in today's Oregonian:

    "George Bush's worst moment as president was when someone said he didn't care about black people. It wasn't the day he watched terrorists kill 3,000 people on 9/11.

    "It wasn't the horrible human suffering and his disgraceful response to it after Hurricane Katrina.

    "It wasn't discovering that his war in Iraq -- a war that has displaced more than 1 million Iraqis, killed more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops, and has wounded and crippled 500,000 more -- was a mistake. For not only weren't there any weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps even more important, he went to war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and at the time had nothing to do with terrorism. It wasn't that his economic policies led to financial collapse and record deficits -- and have caused a worldwide recession we are still in.

    "No, his worst day was when he got his feelings hurt by something someone said about him. "
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 7:17 PM GMT
    tazzari saidA letter in today's Oregonian:

    "George Bush's worst moment as president was when someone said he didn't care about black people. It wasn't the day he watched terrorists kill 3,000 people on 9/11.

    "It wasn't the horrible human suffering and his disgraceful response to it after Hurricane Katrina.

    "It wasn't discovering that his war in Iraq -- a war that has displaced more than 1 million Iraqis, killed more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops, and has wounded and crippled 500,000 more -- was a mistake. For not only weren't there any weapons of mass destruction, but perhaps even more important, he went to war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and at the time had nothing to do with terrorism. It wasn't that his economic policies led to financial collapse and record deficits -- and have caused a worldwide recession we are still in.

    "No, his worst day was when he got his feelings hurt by something someone said about him. "


    >APPLAUSE<

    Oregon: way ahead of the curve! icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 13, 2010 7:42 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    B787 saidWhen Crown Publishing inked a deal .....


    ... By: Ryan Grim


    You do realize that you are violating copyright of the Huffington Post by copying and pasting this here, don't you?

    This is also a violation of RJ Forum Rule #5.



    He attributed it. No copyright infringement.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 14, 2010 11:38 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    UpperCanadian said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidLOL ..... still with the trying to say that W wasn't anointed by the Supreme Court when he didn't win
    If he had won by count then why did the Court step in and make a Non-precedent setting decision stopping the count? Again as with everything "Activist" this court has done so far with a 5/4 vote

    Because that wasn't the case and the republicans who sent busloads of campaign workers and office people banging on the courthouse doors to stop the count also knew it

    I lived through it ............ I saw it unfold right before my eyes
    George W Bush stole that election with the help of his brother Jeb and we as a country paid for allowing it to happen in spades by letting that idiot run rampant

    Did you read those links? The court decision did not matter. Bush would have won anyway. Simple facts. Is your ideology causing you to be so blind you cannot comprehend them?


    And in the end after all the spin and lies
    they all got together and said HEY GORE WOULD HAVE WON AFTERALL

    Again you ..... listen to what you wanna hear even though the truth is right there in front of you
    why were they so bent on stopping a count that they would have won anyway???
    ............................Because they KNEW they weren't going to win

    GO FIGGER http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040526_KeatingPaper.pdf

    I read everything. It shows under different scenarios, different winners in a very close, imperfect election procedure. But it clearly shows what both the NY Times and CNN reports state. That is, had the court agreed to Gore's specific recount request, Bush still would have won.


    No. That is NOT what the link YOU posted said - it said in the last paragraph that if the FULL count had gone ahead - Gore might have won. It is posted above and I even highlighted it in bold. It is right in front of you if you look up (waaaay up... and I'll call Rusty)

    Talk about stubborn and willfull denial of what is written icon_rolleyes.gif I thought you able to sustain an intelligent prolonged conversation but once you start arguing black is white, you are no longer worth it.

    Dismissed.

    The report you quoted said might. I just repeated it. The other report said if there had been a full recount Gore would have won. But the point I made which is supported by all references, is had there been a partial recount per Gore request, Bush still would have won. Gore did not want to request a full recount because the outcome would have been uncertain. He chose a district favorable to him to make the recount request. Therefore the central premise of the Democrat whining that the court selected or anointed Bush is patently false.
    Now case closed. Bye.


    Haha .....
    By you stating a case closed ... it's closed ?
    Who made you of all people grand Poobah of political discussion?
    Of those pieces you discuss their headlines state one thing but if you actually read the articles they go on to state that Gore would have likely won
    by all accounts if there had been a remanded recount of the entire state which is stated by FL Election law under cases of a close race like this one
    ............... Gore would have won

    and that does not bring into account the problems with the Buchanan votes
    and the purging of people with past felonies on their record
    and those with similar names

    and for you to not realize all the discrepancies and ironies in this case and for you just to hide behind baseless rhetoric when there is AMPLE evidence that's points to the opposite conclusion
    shows that you don't have the evidence