George W. Bush - Decision Points

[mtjm]

Has anyone read this yet? My wife bought me the the book, and I just finished the first chapter seems like its going to be a great read. Its intresting, it gives you all the tough decisions he had to make while in office as The President of the United States. George wrote it himself, with no ghost writer, so it makes it that much better that your getting the words, directly from "the horse's mouth".

 

He is my favorite president, and I was curious as to wether or not anyone has read this yet, and there thoughts?

[aviv chadash]

I would probably question the honesty, or at least the depth into which he goes for the subject matter. How much can he really say?

[Guest Eliza1]

I know people who are not fans of George W. Bush but I'm not one to judge people and to be fair, he did have to make many tough decisions. The stress of the situations that he had to face would probably kill me ten times over, so I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will definately read his biography some time next year out of interests sake.

[mtjm]

I would probably question the honesty, or at least the depth into which he goes for the subject matter. How much can he really say?

 

 

This is probabby true, I wouldn't question the honesty, however I am inclined to agree, on the depth of the matter. Either way, it will be interesting to read about 9/11 and Katrina, about the elections etc...

[aviv chadash]

When I said question his honesty, I was initially referring to 'more general' issues, not necessarily trivial, but relatively trivial; I was thinking more along the lines of the usual political propaganda - that you get with all parties - designed to maintain the appearance of the party. Simply as a personal opinion, I suspect that American politicians are more inclined to this than British politicians, who like to bitch an awful lot (and relate things people don't want to know...).

With "How much can he really say?", I was thinking in terms of National Security and what not. It's probably extremely sensitive at the moment.

Edited November 17, 2010 by aviv chadash

[Echo]

George W. Bush is my least favorite president, and in my opinion, he did a lot that damaged this country. Therefore, I think it would be kind of interesting to read his biography, to see his motivations and intentions behind some of his decisions.

[Roland Butter]

He is my favorite president

 

Well, that's an iconoclastic view, for sure. He almost certainly isn't even his own Mum's favourite President.

 

But, against my better judgement, I'll bite:

 

In a field where the runners include George Washington, Abe Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, why Bush?

[mtjm]

Well, that's an iconoclastic view, for sure. He almost certainly isn't even his own Mum's favourite President.

 

But, against my better judgement, I'll bite:

 

In a field where the runners include George Washington, Abe Lincoln, FDR, Eisenhower and Kennedy, why Bush?

 

 

Well to be honest, he is my favorite for a few reasons. He is very devoit in his faith, as am I, and used that in every question he was faced with in his presidency. I believe America was very lucky to have a president like him in office during 9/11 and all of the terrorist attacks that america faced, he is hard nosed and well versed in war (His father was president during part of the gulf war/ desert storm.) Many a presidents would not have had the courage to react as he did, and immeadietly go to war, with a country and organization (al Qieda) because they would be worried about there image, and re-election. He truely loves his country and his emotions are raw. I love a president who wears his heart on his sleeve.

 

Also I am a republican, I do admire, FDR Greatly as well.

[aviv chadash]

A Republican Christian? Am I missing something? You mean he says he's a Christian, the Bible is ultra-left. You can;t follow every yod and tittle and still be right wing, and extremely wealthy.

[Chrissy]

I've not read the book, but would be interested in doing so especially as he did write it himself. Whether you agree with Bush's politics or policies there were / are plenty in the USA and the wider world who did agree with his politics.

 

I think that if you are to read politcal memoirs, those of politcians from 'the other sides' can be more informative, revealing and interesting than those from your own 'side'. A kind of "Heck, I know what I think and why ~ let's see what makes that lot tick"

[Guest Eliza1]

I've not read the book, but would be interested in doing so especially as he did write it himself. Whether you agree with Bush's politics or policies there were / are plenty in the USA and the wider world who did agree with his politics.

 

I think that if you are to read politcal memoirs, those of politcians from 'the other sides' can be more informative, revealing and interesting than those from your own 'side'. A kind of "Heck, I know what I think and why ~ let's see what makes that lot tick"

 

Yep, I agree with that, there's always two or more sides to every story

[mtjm]

A Republican Christian? Am I missing something? You mean he says he's a Christian, the Bible is ultra-left. You can;t follow every yod and tittle and still be right wing, and extremely wealthy.

 

Being wealthy has nothing to do with politics or religion. and as a matter of fact I believe it to be the other way around, you can't be left and be a christian.

 

The bible is actually very right...

 

How can someone be Pro-Choice and be a christian? you can't because your killing something god created. How can you be a gay marriage activist and be christian? The bible says marriage is between man and woman, not man and man. these are things that Dems have been fighting for for years.

[Donna]

I'm dying to read this. At the moment it's too expensive for me to purchase and my local library doesn't have it yet

[Ruth]

Has anyone read this yet? My wife bought me the the book, and I just finished the first chapter seems like its going to be a great read. Its intresting, it gives you all the tough decisions he had to make while in office as The President of the United States. George wrote it himself, with no ghost writer, so it makes it that much better that your getting the words, directly from "the horse's mouth".

 

He is my favorite president, and I was curious as to wether or not anyone has read this yet, and there thoughts?

 

Not read it. I was NOT a fan of George W Bush - thought he was a bad President, and bad for the USA and it's allies. However, I am always interested in political books and would probably get round to it at some point...except for the fact that he has simply lifted parts of his book from books written by political colleagues and advisors. It's very blatant in some cases (apparently, according to a friend who has read it).

 

FWIW, I didn't think George Bush was an evil man. I do think he loves his country very much and wanted to do what he thought was best - but the problem was that he was promoted into a position far above and beyond his capabilities,and was too easily manipulated by those around him.

 

Sorry - this might have turned into a bit of a rant - unintentional. I hope you'll tell us what you thought when you've finished it.

[aviv chadash]

Being wealthy has nothing to do with politics or religion. and as a matter of fact I believe it to be the other way around, you can't be left and be a christian.

 

The bible is actually very right...

 

How can someone be Pro-Choice and be a christian? you can't because your killing something god created. How can you be a gay marriage activist and be christian? The bible says marriage is between man and woman, not man and man. these are things that Dems have been fighting for for years.

 

I think being wealthy can feature in both politics and religion. Accumulation of personal wealth by someone who espouses a belief in communism seems hypoctirical. In Christianity, it seems left in terms of political theory; which is different (although can be informed by) issues of morality. Chrisitanity is right wing, as you say, in terms of some issues of morality. In terms of wealth,it is argued that money is not said to be evil, but I do not know of any passages that promotes accumulation of wealth; in fact, accumulation of wealth seems to be disapproved of, and I am sure there is a famous quote about a camel and a needle...

 

Sorry - this might have turned into a bit of a rant - unintentional. I hope you'll tell us what you thought when you've finished it.

 

This is about George Bush and politics, it was bound to happen

Edited November 20, 2010 by aviv chadash

[ladymacbeth]

 

How can someone be Pro-Choice and be a christian? you can't because your killing something god created. How can you be a gay marriage activist and be christian? The bible says marriage is between man and woman, not man and man. these are things that Dems have been fighting for for years.

 

 

Quite easily actually.

For Pro-choice. - go to a country where abortion is not legal. Look at the consequences for poverty-stricken women who have back-street abortions. You will see teenage girls losing their uteruses and their lives from infection from botched home abortions. Their wealthy counterparts in the same country will be travelling abroad to procure an abortion, but believe me they will be getting them. Then decide whether it is worth desparate teenagers dying for what is still just a potential life. Abortion is not pretty but what happens when it isn't available is even worse. That is why I'm a pro-choice christian.

 

For gay marriage - you need to get online and look at some of the theological arguments around this issue. They are too numerous to even go into in one thread.

 

Unfortunately in the real world things are not often black and white but many shades of grey and christians just come across as unkind and unfeeling when they can't recognise that.

[Guest Eliza1]

Then decide whether it is worth desparate teenagers dying for what is still just a potential life. Abortion is not pretty but what happens when it isn't available is even worse. That is why I'm a pro-choice christian.

 

For gay marriage - you need to get online and look at some of the theological arguments around this issue. They are too numerous to even go into in one thread.

 

Unfortunately in the real world things are not often black and white but many shades of grey and christians just come across as unkind and unfeeling when they can't recognise that.

 

That's true, there have been numerous papers written that highlight the fact that there is no argument against pro-choice or any material that condemns a pro-choice society in the bible.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Eliza1

[Ruth]

Being wealthy has nothing to do with politics or religion. and as a matter of fact I believe it to be the other way around, you can't be left and be a christian.

 

The bible is actually very right...

 

How can someone be Pro-Choice and be a christian? you can't because your killing something god created. How can you be a gay marriage activist and be christian? The bible says marriage is between man and woman, not man and man. these are things that Dems have been fighting for for years.

 

Well, that is your opinion, which you are of course entirely entitled to. As I'm not religious, the Bible does not in any way dictate my beliefs. I come down very firmly on the side of democracy, although I'm not daft enough to believe that idiots like Glenn Beck and co represent republicans.

 

As for Bush's religious leanings - they are his own business, but should not have any effect on the way he ran the country. What about the separation of church and state?

 

And what the democrats have been fighting for for years - the things you referenced in your post - amount to equality for all, and the right for people to make a choice about their own body. I don't see why anybody would want to argue with that. (Actually, I do see why they would, but I don't understand it.)

 

At the risk of repeating my previous post - I think Republicans generally accept that Bush was a bad president. He just wasn't capable of carrying out the job. He was promoted into a position far above and beyond his abilities, and was surrounded by people who manipulated him for their own agenda. He was a weak weak man. And while I don't believe that Bush was an evil man, I am convinced that there is a wide streak of evil in Dick Cheney, who of course was one of Bush's main manipulators.

 

Morally, I don't think Bush should have been president anyway - Al Gore should have been.

 

As for what anybody else might have done in the wake of the September 11th attacks - we can only speculate. Plenty of people think he handled the situation extremely badly. I like to think that a different president would have done a much better job, but we will never know.

[mtjm]

Well, that is your opinion, which you are of course entirely entitled to. As I'm not religious, the Bible does not in any way dictate my beliefs. I come down very firmly on the side of democracy, although I'm not daft enough to believe that idiots like Glenn Beck and co represent republicans.

 

As for Bush's religious leanings - they are his own business, but should not have any effect on the way he ran the country. What about the separation of church and state?

 

And what the democrats have been fighting for for years - the things you referenced in your post - amount to equality for all, and the right for people to make a choice about their own body. I don't see why anybody would want to argue with that. (Actually, I do see why they would, but I don't understand it.)

 

At the risk of repeating my previous post - I think Republicans generally accept that Bush was a bad president. He just wasn't capable of carrying out the job. He was promoted into a position far above and beyond his abilities, and was surrounded by people who manipulated him for their own agenda. He was a weak weak man. And while I don't believe that Bush was an evil man, I am convinced that there is a wide streak of evil in Dick Cheney, who of course was one of Bush's main manipulators.

 

Morally, I don't think Bush should have been president anyway - Al Gore should have been.

 

As for what anybody else might have done in the wake of the September 11th attacks - we can only speculate. Plenty of people think he handled the situation extremely badly. I like to think that a different president would have done a much better job, but we will never know.

 

 

 

That is your opinion, and of course your entitled to have one.

 

I just tend to disagree with every point you made. this should be a discussion on this autobiography, and not CNN as the above post appears to be from. Just as you seem very left. I am an ultraconservative who believes that Bush was a fantasic president, and I have never met a republican who told me otherwise, especially compared to the shotty, most inexperienced, terrible current administration. (inexperiencedd refers only to the president.) Please refrain from making this your demecratic platform, I was asked a question and I responded. I in no way intended to start a never ending battle of politics. We both agree that were not going to agree, so let us move on to the Non Fiction work for which this thread was created.

[Ruth]

That is your opinion, and of course your entitled to have one.

 

I just tend to disagree with every point you made. this should be a discussion on this autobiography, and not CNN as the above post appears to be from. Just as you seem very left. I am an ultraconservative who believes that Bush was a fantasic president, and I have never met a republican who told me otherwise, especially compared to the shotty, most inexperienced, terrible current administration. (inexperiencedd refers only to the president.) Please refrain from making this your demecratic platform, I was asked a question and I responded. I in no way intended to start a never ending battle of politics. We both agree that were not going to agree, so let us move on to the Non Fiction work for which this thread was created.

 

I'd just like to make a few points:

 

1. My post was IN NO WAY taken from CNN. It was all my own words.

2. I was discussing his autobiography - or at least whether the words in it were in fact his own, which is surely an important factor when discussing an autobiography!

3. You were the one who mentioned what the democrats have been fighting for. I merely responded to your point, just as you responded to someone else's. That's how discussions go.

4. As for having never met a republican who thought Bush was anything less than fantastic...that's not my experience at all. Having spent time in Rhode Island, New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Boston, I assure you that I have met PLENTY of republicans who disliked Bush. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a good Republican president. Just that Bush wasn't any good (my opinion).

5. I am NOT making this my democratic platform, and I find your suggestion that I am doing to be slightly insulting. I could just as easily accuse you of making this your republican platform. Or your platform for speaking out against abortion or gay marriage. (But I won't.)

6. If you start a thread about Bush's autobiography (or indeed about any president's autobiography) you will have to accept that people will have differing opinions and should be able to express them without being accused of trying to make this thread their democratic platform.

7. Your comments about the current government do not relate to Bush's autobiography. I thought you wanted this discussion to be exclusively about his autobiography.

 

I'm sorry if this post all sounds a little confrontational. You're right - my beliefs fall firmly to the left, but I have lots of friends who disagree with me. I enjoy hearing different opinions, and think it's very important to be able to accept different opinions even if you can't agree with them. I don't mean to sound as if I'm having a go at you, but I was slightly taken aback at your suggestion that I was using CNN to form my post (I repeat that I most certainly did not use CNN or any other site), and that I was making this thread my political platform, which was in no way my intention.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Ruth

[Guest Eliza1]

If I were to be honest, I don't know that much about politics. But I think George Bush became president for all the wrong reasons. He did not seem that much of an intelligent man and seemed to be strung along, as Ruth said, by many other people's influences. In fact when the Twin Tower's were hit, anything I saw of Bush, he was either playing Golf, or staring into the camera like a Rabbit caught in the headlights, answering questions in the most random, stupid way possible (but it made for funny viewing).

 

He went into office because daddy was a president before him, he didn't really have a clue what was in store. And I am certain he is a lovely man in his way but you can't put a sheep in wolfs clothing.

 

I don't think he bargained for all that to happen and he was WAY out of his depth. I think he breathed in a sigh of relief when another president was elected. Obama seems to be much more intelligent, mature and capable than Bush ever was.

 

Because of all of the above, the biography would be enormously interesting to read so it's all good.

 

I don't mean to offend anyone, it's just my opinion and I would do the same thing if it were an Irish president. There's a few people in Irish politics I could name and shame but I'm talking about an biography here people....

[UCLGeogPhD]

Hmmm, well back to the book. I haven't finished it yet but am making my way through it (its not one I'd 'Mainline' through in an afternoon) slowly and its not overly bad in anyway. I wasn't the biggest of fans of him as president of the USA and he definitely made some mistakes, in fact he admits to making them in the book (I'm not saying 'his' book as I think its ghost written most likely). It doesnt change my overall opinion of his presidency but its nice to hear about some of this stuff from his point of view. I also suspect that he isn't the total fool people make him out to be, I'm not saying he's mensa material, but he's not as naive as some would have you believe and has learnt to play the 'non-genius' card.

[aitraining]

I read this book as I am a U.S Presidential Memoir/Auto Bio buff. While I was a Pres Bush supporter (American Republican here - full disclosure ), I did find this book a little disapointing (for me). He focuses on key decision areas and is very thorough addressing those areas, it is not a detailed account of his presidency - which I pefer. He also does not get deep into the politics and campaigning - which I love. Karl Rove (Pres Bush's Political Advisor) has a very good book - "Courage and Consequence" which really gets deep into the campign stuff if that's your thing.