George Bush's book
By DCMerkle
@DCMerkle (1281)
United States
November 7, 2010 12:20am CST
Am I going to read the book? NO! Why? Because I do not want to hear anything that he has to say about his term as President. He's left us enough of a legacy. I saw his interview with Matt Lauer and all it says to me is that the book is full of excuses. I'm the type of person that will leave someone the benefit of a doubt, but after 911 and what Bush said, when he said it, was what turned me totally against Bush.
He took advantage of the Nation's most emotional high point of the crisis. We were a Nation that was still trying to understand what had happened to us. We had no idea what we were to do and Bush took advantage of the opportunity to rally the troops. Maybe, in hindsight, we as a Nation would have wanted to have war declared, but not having us running like scared children to something that we were doing out of fear, anger and frustration. We were not allowed to make a decision that we needed time to think about. Bush decided for us because what?? Because he said so? Look at what it did to us in the long run. Would it had been better if we had approached the President as a Nation with the request to declare war? There's no answer to that, but at least we as a Nation, as a whole, would have known that we asked and weren't forced.
DCMerkle
2 people like this
4 responses
@ladybugmagic (3978)
• United States
7 Nov 10
Doesn't he say in his book, "Damn Right, I approved Waterboarding"? I saw an article headline on it, but I couldn't bring myself to read it.
1 person likes this
@HawaiiGopher (1009)
• Belgium
7 Nov 10
I can already hear our certain members shaking behind their keyboards, "YOU SAY THAT AS IF IT'S A BAD THING. WE NEED TO GET INFORMATION OUT OF TERRORISTS FAST!!! WATERBOARDING IS NOT TORTURE!"
If this is indeed what people are thinking then..
1) If you think waterboarding is not torture, I suggest you go ahead and try it out yourself. It'll just be a "fun little activity," right?
2) Torture can indeed provide quick answers, but not necessarily correct ones.
2 people like this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Nov 10
Hawaii, that sounds like a lot of fun, I always thought that we should have had Bush and Cheney prove to us that it wasn't torture by doing it themselves on live TV. They could have put it on pay per view and all the proceeds go to the GWB presidential library (which is very ironic seeing how listening to him speak makes you wonder when the last time he read a book that had words in it). I would have paid money to see that.
1 person likes this
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
7 Nov 10
The ironic part of Bush's war in Iraq is that it has cost us over $600 Billion, and he NEVER spent one dime paying for it. He just left it for the next guy to figure out. I saw part of his interview as well, and I agree that he seams to only make excuses for his presidency. But, that is because nothing good came out of it!!!
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
8 Nov 10
Thank you for the best response.
1 person likes this
@Rollo1 (16679)
• Boston, Massachusetts
8 Nov 10
I guess what I get out of this is that you already know what you believe and you're not going to listen to anymore about it even if they know more about it than you do. In your case, you believe that Bush went to war for no good reason and forced us all into it (apparently, he forced all of Congress to go along with it, so I guess you're mad at all of them too).
It's okay to close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and refuse to hear anything but your own voice echoing in your head. It's okay. You'll never learn anything new, but not everyone wants to hear all sides or even the truth. Sometimes, people just like their conspiracy theories better than the truth.
@DCMerkle (1281)
• United States
8 Nov 10
Rollo1,
As for Congress, there were those that were against war until the Nation had gotten over its shock. They did not want us to rush into war in a blind rage. We didn't even do that in W.W.II. President Roosevelt knew enough to ready the troops, check the closets to see if we were prepared to send over our men, fully equipped and battle ready.
What did Bush do? He had a temper tantrum because the Congressmen did not see his point of view. What they saw was blind rage from a man that was to protect our Country. Here was a man that would have a temper tantrum if the money wasn't released to pour into war, right away, NOW! Look at how ill-equipped our men were? There's a time for history to repeat itself out of common sense and Bush obviously had none.
Did we have a good reason? Yes, but doesn't good reason mean that you have to be prepared? If you believe in good reason to go to war wouldn't you want to have all your ducks in a row? Is war a good thing? I don't personally believe in any war, but I have not been born into a time where war is not a necessary evil. If we have to fight in a war as a Nation, at least go into it with your soldiers standing strong and not ducking and dodging the bullets and land mines.
DCMerkle
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
7 Nov 10
I'm going to read it. I'll also read Obama's when he's out of office, as I'm sure he'll be writing a book too.
It's easier, I'm sure, for what an individual thinks Bush thought to be their personal truth. And as an agnostic individual who rallies for people to leave religious truth--to an extent--alone for the sake of believers, I certainly have no beef with that.
But I'm personally interested in knowing what goes through the head of any American President, whether I agree or disagree with their policies.
Some self-promoting fluff piece from a do-gooder run-of-the-mill politician - I don't want to subject myself to that tripe. But the thoughts of an American President, especially one so controversial and, for the most part, so silent during his two terms, I'm actually looking forward to reading it.
@DCMerkle (1281)
• United States
8 Nov 10
materfish,
It's a given that any President will write their own autobiography's. It's the ones that are trying to justify what they did that was obviously wrong when in office, that is a waste of paper.
This statement of yours, I'm not sure just what you meant by that.
"But I'm personally interested in knowing what goes through the head of any American President, whether I agree or disagree with their policies." Please clarify.
Bush will never be able to justify what he did or didn't do in Office. When Hatti was hit by the earthquake I was surprised to see him teaming up with Carter to help. Was he, even then, trying to correct his Katrina foul up? He never made an appeal like that for New Orleans.
DCMerkle
@DCMerkle (1281)
• United States
8 Nov 10
Sorry, Wrong statement. It was this one.
"It's easier, I'm sure, for what an individual thinks Bush thought to be their personal truth. And as an agnostic individual who rallies for people to leave religious truth--to an extent--alone for the sake of believers, I certainly have no beef with that."
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
8 Nov 10
Easy.
Some people think: "Little W went to war because of his daddy!"
Or they might think: "We murder innocent men, women and children for oil!"
Or they might think: "Bush was behind 911!"
Or they might think: "Bush blew up the levees in New Orleans!"
I've met plenty of people believing this stuff. They take it extremely seriously. It is their truth. And they can keep it. It doesn't matter to me.
And your truth about Bush, that he'll never be able to justify X and Y, is just your truth.
Does that now carry over and make me an enemy or a bad person for reading the book?
You're really presenting to me a case against reading it? 
"It's the ones that are trying to justify what they did that was obviously wrong when in office, that is a waste of paper."
Case in point.
"It's the ones that are trying to justify what they did that was obviously wrong when in office, that is a waste of paper."
Case in point.