Bush's Book

[jasonxctf]

Wonder how true this is?

 

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.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

What I've heard is that it's just apologia for his Presidency, mostly, and doesn't offer any insight to who George W. Bush the person is. Very mediocre overall.

 

Oh, and then there's the ACLU (and others) calling for investigations based on Bush admitting he directly authorized waterboarding. Nothing will ever come of that, but that's because the Executive seems pretty much immune from the law.

[Jenksismyhero]

Jesus, you guys are ridiculous.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Wonder how true this is?

 

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.

Did you excerpt this from somewhere? I'd just like a link to know where.

[Cknolls]

f***ing hilarious...and pathetic...

[NorthSideSox72]

Jesus, you guys are ridiculous.

 

Ridiculius about what, exactly? Reviews I've seen even in conservative circles are that the book is pretty shallow and lame. I don't think this is a party bias thing.

 

f***ing hilarious...and pathetic...

 

the book? Have you even read it yet?

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Ridiculius about what, exactly? Reviews I've seen even in conservative circles are that the book is pretty shallow and lame. I don't think this is a party bias thing.

 

 

 

the book? Have you even read it yet?

 

It's just hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Bush could cure cancer and there would be a negative about it ("oh, well he had HELP. He didn't do it himself! Also, he destroyed the world. FACT."

 

A guy that doesn't write his memoir word for word? That NEVER happens. I'm not even a Bush supporter, but GMAB.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's just hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Bush could cure cancer and there would be a negative about it ("oh, well he had HELP. He didn't do it himself! Also, he destroyed the world. FACT."

 

A guy that doesn't write his memoir word for word? That NEVER happens. I'm not even a Bush supporter, but GMAB.

Just seems like you are overreacting here. I don't see hate x10, I see people hitting Bush for writing a lame book, by all accounts.

 

I'm still going to read it, though.

 

[StrangeSox]

It's just hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate hate. Bush could cure cancer and there would be a negative about it ("oh, well he had HELP. He didn't do it himself! Also, he destroyed the world. FACT."

 

A guy that doesn't write his memoir word for word? That NEVER happens. I'm not even a Bush supporter, but GMAB.

 

So why am I ridiculous, as you put it, or pathetic, as cknolls said, for saying it's a mediocre book that doesn't offer much insight, just defenses for his policies?

[Jenksismyhero]

So why am I ridiculous, as you put it, or pathetic, as cknolls said, for saying it's a mediocre book that doesn't offer much insight, just defenses for his policies?

 

Because you haven't read it, so how would you know? Your clear (ridiculous) bias just extends to anything he does/will do.

 

And honestly what did you expect? Did you really expect him to write a book that said "i'll bow to my haters and just apologize profusely for everything I ever did."

[Balta1701]

"just apologize profusely for everything I ever did."

Honestly, I'd kinda like that

[jasonxctf]

Did you excerpt this from somewhere? I'd just like a link to know where.

 

it was an article linked on the Huffington Post.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure how much I believe and don't believe.

 

Personally, I could care less if he did it or not. Just an interesting read.

 

In the interviews that I've seen with him recently, I keep going back to the same feeling. While I disagreed with a lot of his policies, I think he's a nice guy, who tried to do his best, who was just way in over his head.

[Balta1701]

it was an article linked on the Huffington Post.

Could you please provide a working hyperlink? Gracias.

[StrangeSox]

What I've heard is that it's just apologia for his Presidency, mostly, and doesn't offer any insight to who George W. Bush the person is. Very mediocre overall.

 

Oh, and then there's the ACLU (and others) calling for investigations based on Bush admitting he directly authorized waterboarding. Nothing will ever come of that, but that's because the Executive seems pretty much immune from the law.

 

 

Because you haven't read it, so how would you know? Your clear (ridiculous) bias just extends to anything he does/will do.

 

And honestly what did you expect? Did you really expect him to write a book that said "i'll bow to my haters and just apologize profusely for everything I ever did."

 

Sorry, the review I heard said it was mediocre. They began by describing why Grant's memoirs are considered so good, and then contrasted with what Bush wrote.

[StrangeSox]

Here's the review.

 

And since when is "mediocre" "HATE HATE HATE"?

[Jenksismyhero]

Where does he say it's "very mediocre overall?" His complaint is that it's not an expose of who he is personally, but that he just discusses his 8 years in office. Well, that makes sense since the book is called "Decision Points," you know, the decisions he made while in office.

 

Also, I love this:

Bush acknowledges some tactical errors: He should have moved faster to deploy federal troops to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, he says. He should have pushed for immigration reform before Social Security reform after his re-election in 2004. He still gets a "sickening feeling" when he thinks of the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

 

But he admits to no major blunders, and he avoids the larger issues his time in office raise.

 

Just like I said - "well, he didn't apologize for ruining the world, so....meh."

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

No, not like you said. Did you miss why he brings that up? The comparison to Grant?

 

I also didn't directly attribute the word mediocre to the reviewer, but that is certainly the message I took away from his review. Just re-read his first two paragraphs. Explains why Grant is considered so good, and then says Bush's differs on both critical points.

Edited November 12, 2010 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Where does he say it's "very mediocre overall?" His complaint is that it's not an expose of who he is personally, but that he just discusses his 8 years in office. Well, that makes sense since the book is called "Decision Points," you know, the decisions he made while in office.

 

Also, I love this:

 

 

Just like I said - "well, he didn't apologize for ruining the world, so....meh."

If Bush admits no mistakes in his memoirs, anyone who calls him on it wants to have him apologize for ruining the world? The only person in this thread bringing the hate-hate-hate or the bias to this discussion appears to be you.

 

He's a former President and a human being in a very, very, very difficult job - he made mistakes, lots of them. He doesn't have to admit to them, but if he doesn't, he's rightfully going to get called out for it. Your repeated straw man doesn't even vaguely match the reality of any of the posters talking about the book.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, not like you said. Did you miss why he brings that up? The comparison to Grant?

 

I also didn't directly attribute the word mediocre to the reviewer, but that is certainly the message I took away from his review. Just re-read his first two paragraphs. Explains why Grant is considered so good, and then says Bush's differs on both critical points.

 

I guess I don't see it. He says it's not as good as Grant's. Ok fine. He's basically saying he didn't include enough information about his personal life but isntead focuses on his years as President (as if that would make it better to someone who doesn't like him already). He also says "As a justification for his actions, Bush's memoir succeeds admirably. The former president revisits nearly all the controversial decisions of his tenure, and defends them with vigor."

[BigSqwert]

Slightly off topic but a good read.

[Jenksismyhero]

If Bush admits no mistakes in his memoirs, anyone who calls him on it wants to have him apologize for ruining the world? The only person in this thread bringing the hate-hate-hate or the bias to this discussion appears to be you.

 

He's a former President and a human being in a very, very, very difficult job - he made mistakes, lots of them. He doesn't have to admit to them, but if he doesn't, he's rightfully going to get called out for it. Your repeated straw man doesn't even vaguely match the reality of any of the posters talking about the book.

 

Did you read the review? He says he admitted mistakes. He didn't admit THE mistakes the author (and presumably strangesox since he said it was just an apologia) wanted him to admit.

 

My mistake was arguing this too early. I'm sure given another day or two others would have chimed in to say how awful the book was (without actually reading it of course). From the tone of the initial posts - that he didn't write every word himself and that it was "mediocre" based on a review that said nothing of the sort - I sensed the same blind hate that's been going on for the better part of the decade.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[BigSqwert]

Did you read the review? He says he admitted mistakes. He didn't admit THE mistakes the author (and presumably strangesox since he said it was just an apologia) wanted him to admit.

 

My mistake was arguing this too early. I'm sure given another day or two others would have chimed in to say how awful the book was (without actually reading it of course). From the tone of the initial posts - that he didn't write every word himself and that it was "mediocre" based on a review that said nothing of the sort - I sensed the same blind hate that's been going on for the better part of the decade.

 

Yeah, none of it is warranted. Just blind hatred.

Edited November 12, 2010 by BigSqwert

[StrangeSox]

Did you read the review? He says he admitted mistakes. He didn't admit THE mistakes the author (and presumably strangesox since he said it was just an apologia) wanted him to admit.

 

My mistake was arguing this too early. I'm sure given another day or two others would have chimed in to say how awful the book was (without actually reading it of course). From the tone of the initial posts - that he didn't write every word himself and that it was "mediocre" based on a review that said nothing of the sort - I sensed the same blind hate that's been going on for the better part of the decade.

 

You must be reading a different review, or selectively ignoring where the reviewer points out the book's shortcomings.

[StrangeSox]

I guess I don't see it. He says it's not as good as Grant's. Ok fine. He's basically saying he didn't include enough information about his personal life but isntead focuses on his years as President (as if that would make it better to someone who doesn't like him already). He also says "As a justification for his actions, Bush's memoir succeeds admirably. The former president revisits nearly all the controversial decisions of his tenure, and defends them with vigor."

 

He described why Grant's writings are considered good with two main points, and then he says Bush's book differs in both regards.

 

You're quote-mining here, and removing the bit of text that puts what you quoted into context, where the reviewer criticizes Bush's lack of addressing any larger mistakes or some of the major issues during his presidency.

 

The review wasn't an attack on Bush, but you're certainly reading it that way. It was a review of a book, and in comparison with the highly-regarded works in the same category, it falls short. That doesn't make it bad, just pretty mediocre. Nothing special.

 

But, apparently, that's BLIND RAVENOUS HATRED!

[Jenksismyhero]

He described why Grant's writings are considered good with two main points, and then he says Bush's book differs in both regards.

 

You're quote-mining here, and removing the bit of text that puts what you quoted into context, where the reviewer criticizes Bush's lack of addressing any larger mistakes or some of the major issues during his presidency.

 

The review wasn't an attack on Bush, but you're certainly reading it that way. It was a review of a book, and in comparison with the highly-regarded works in the same category, it falls short. That doesn't make it bad, just pretty mediocre. Nothing special.

 

But, apparently, that's BLIND RAVENOUS HATRED!

 

Yeah whatever. You're taking him saying that it doesn't compare to one other memoir (not "works") as him saying it's mediocre. Point out something else he says in there that would lead you to conclude that. He doesn't. It's a pretty neutral review. I read it as him saying "I wish he would have talked more about his personal life." But again, as if him writing 4 paragraphs about how God talks to him would change your opinion on him or the decisions he made.

 

Just admit your bias towards him led you to conclude it was just a mediocre book, despite the fact that the review you base that opinion on doesn't say anything like that. That's what I'm getting at. "Hate" might be a strong word, but that's basically what it is.