Bush Memoir

[6ULDV8]

Originally Posted by john_galt

You are talking about a man with a Master's Degree in business from Wharton. I would think that some of you business minded people would respect that. Unlike many here I have my copy pre-ordered and will read it when it is officially released next week. The rest of you can stay with your leaks and little minds.

LMAO!

[Muffrider]

Originally Posted by kcbigpapa

As far as I know, he was a Yale undergrad, then to Harvard for an MBA. I don't believe he ever attended Wharton. I am curious if the book will discuss his past drug use or if the book focuses just on his time in the White House. He is an admitted recovering alcoholic, but he is alleged to be a big cocaine user as well, which I would like to hear more on that subject.

I don't believe he attended Wharton. Actually, I doubt that he can spell it. But I wouldn't doubt that in the BOOK he claims to have attended Wharton.

I'm not a fan, and he and I have far different political views, but I bet he'd be a member on this site if he could. And he'd be a freaking HOOT with whom to drink beer and chase pussy.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by Miss_Mya

I just want to know who the poor person was that had to sit and listen to his memoirs so they could be written down. Let's face it the "man" couldn't read from a teleprompter so I highly doubt he knows how to write. I doubt it will be that long of a book and will equate to the "Run Spot Run" books but much easier to read.

Regardless of whether or not you liked Bush, one needs to understand that his style of speech was pure Texas. He talked to us as a down home boy, when he really was quite well educated. The dropped shoulder, the side talk and the head forced forware are all Texas "good old boy" delivery. It is an attempt to avoid the "Eastern slick guy look". One thing that impressed me was the lack of use of aids (teleprompter) for many of his speeches (except before speeches, and before congress). I think he was well rehearsed in his speeches; it just wasn't what most people expected.

I have been impressed with Obama's constant use of the teleprompter; especially how you can tell how the sentence ends on the prompter line because he always pauses there instead of reading the complete sentence.

Next time listen and see if you can figure this out by the way he uses chop-chop sentences. He gives a confident delivery, but one has to wonder if he can read a complete sentence when he breaks up the continuity and meaning.

JR

[john_galt]

I suggest that you "Bush sounds dumb" check out Bush being himself. No teleprompter, no notes, just the man. Look it up on youtube. Leno and Bush. The man is comfortable being himself.

[dirty dog]

This has been stated before and I believe it, we will never know what kind of President GW would have been without Sept 11. This one act changed the direction of his Presidency, drawing his attention and the countrys finances down a path that was never intended nor anticipated. Then you add on Katrina, which no one, not a sole in this country was ready for. Within this lifetime there has never been a natural disaster that resulted in the loss of a major city, those who now speak of what should have been done do so with the benefit of hindsight. I do believe that no President would have been received as doing enough, all the Kanya bullshit aside.

This being said, I will also state that the same could be said of President Obama, we will never know what this President could have done, because the country he took command of has problems which like those of Sept 11 draw the resources and attention of this President and his administration away from those things that would have been the goals he would have liked to achieve. Whether this is good or bad and whether or not Bush or Obama did things right or wrong, will only be answered with the passage of time. History will tell us one day whether either were good Presidents, because it is only through the passage of time that we see the ramifications of the decisions made today. You can look at ever President and you will find decisions which were thought to be wrong at the time that turned our right and you will also see decisions which were thought to be right, turn out to cause problems for those who follow. Each President has made both the good and bad decisions.

Is this not the time to stop the Bush and Obama bashing, to put aside the extreme agenda on both sides and find a middle ground that is not good for the right nor one that is good for the left, but one which is good for the country.

[Miss_Mya]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Is this not the time to stop the Bush and Obama bashing, to put aside the extreme agenda on both sides and find a middle ground that is not good for the right nor one that is good for the left, but one which is good for the country.

+1 I would like to think that everyone here would agree with you on this but I can think of a couple that will not due to their warped political views.

[paragod]

This morning, I watched some of the interview he did the other day for some big book club. I look forward to reading the book, but I have to finish Keith Richards autobiography, and The Kennedy Detail first.

[KCJoe]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

This has been stated before and I believe it, we will never know what kind of President GW would have been without Sept 11. This one act changed the direction of his Presidency, drawing his attention and the countrys finances down a path that was never intended nor anticipated.

I bet we still would have gone to war in Iraq.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by KCJoe

I bet we still would have gone to war in Iraq.

Maybe so, probably not because there would have been no public support, although many are short of memory with regards to this but at the time we went to war in Iraq there was an almost 97% approval rate. But I guess the bashing goes on and on from both sides.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

This has been stated before and I believe it, we will never know what kind of President GW would have been without Sept 11. This one act changed the direction of his Presidency.....

.....President Obama, we will never know what this President could have done, because the country he took command of has problems .....

Is this not the time to stop the Bush and Obama bashing, to put aside the extreme agenda on both sides .....

Well, a lot of good thoughts. Here are my comments:
1) Bush made a decision. If we have to go to war. Do it! Get the best military minds involved and get the politicians, including himself, out of the way. General H. Norman Schwarzkopf (Stormin Norman) got the job done, with a lot of criticism from the politicians as to what was taking so long in Iraq to get our forces in there. But we got prepared, got the supplies and support in place. When we moved, we moved fast. An excellent battle plan. Much unlike the experience in Nam where LBJ tried to control the military for his own glory. The lies of LBJ to the American People are still beyond comprehension. "We have no troops in Cambodia, or Laos." Nope, we were not "officially" stationed in that country, or even Nam, troops were stationed elsewhere, and flown in for missions on a regular schedule. The lies where endless. At least Bush was straight forward with us. We are going to go to war here, and we are going to get it done; he did just what he said. Now the Democrats rely on repeated lies, and soon some people believe what they hear.

Thank you Mr. Bush for your direct action after 9/11. You deserve the thanks of the entire nation.

2) For Obama. We are going through a time of economic problems. We need jobs badly. So, why has he spent his entire time in office trying to promote an agenda about health care. Health care is not perfect, and neither is his plan concerning health care. All he has done is to make a lot of noise, and accomplish very little. He should have been spending his entire time on the economic issues. But, that is not well understood by most of the voters.

LBJ tried to reform the health care of this country. He made the statement that no Doctor should be earning over $20,000 per year (I actually heard this speech)! How foolish, a Doctor couldn't pay off his education, or even buy his insurance at that rate of pay. The Democrats pick up this socialistic attack on the medical community every few years. What we all should be concern with is the problems that the insurance companies have brought with their attempts to control the medical community. If the government would address the need to regulate the insurance community perhaps we could have better medical service. However, it is much better now than than in Europe where there is a real problem due to the socialistic attempt to be all things, and control all aspects of life.

In 1963 I had a discussion with a political science major who thought that Russia was the best form of government because a socialist government would take care of all of the needs of the people. I told him then that he was crazy and predicted that the Russian government would fall apart in our lifetime because it could not account for the motivation of people to try to better themselves by their own efforts. Well, the time was much sooner than I predicted.

We all want to have a good life, and most of us are motivated to go out and get it. The socialists who want to control our lives do not take the self motivation of the individual person into account. We have the freedom to choose what we desire in life. Some of us only want money. Money is easy to earn, just go to work and concentrate on only earning money. If that is what you want, than that is what you will get. Some people want to be secure, so they get a government job and do nothing for 20 years until they reach an empty retirement. Some want to help others, and many of those go into medicine. Whatever your motivation, there is an opportunity for you to get it whey you have the freedom to choose. The choice is lost with both the socialist, and with those who desire to control and manipulate our lives.

Play safe,

JR

[catnipdipper]

Maybe it is too early in the morning and maybe I have not had enough coffee............I have no understanding of what you just said and you view of history and the world.

Not to worry tho it happens often.

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by catnipdipper

Maybe it is too early in the morning and maybe I have not had enough coffee............I have no understanding of what you just said and you view of history and the world.

Not to worry tho it happens often.

View???

The facts are the facts! I stated what happened. How soon people forget history. Stormin Norman was a great leader. Bush had enough knowledge from his father (a past CIA director) to get out of the way and let the military do the job. His political fallout was giving the credit to others. But than, that what a real leader is suppose to do.

Under Eisenhower, and most republicans since, decisions by the Executive branch of government has been organized like a pyramid, resting solidly on a broad base with most of the administration covered by a the larger number of workers. Policy and direction are administered by the upper layers of government. It is the policy and philosophy of a president that matters most; he should hire the people to advise him that are experts in their fields and help him direct the policy of government in the way that is needed.
Administration of the established policy is made by the greater number of government workers.

I very briefly met Ragan once (before he was President) with one other person in the room. Relaxed he quickly made a personal joke. He impressed me as funny guy who was totally relaxed with being himself; it was his ability to gather and use the advise of others that lead to the success of his economic policies.

Under Kennedy, LBJ, and most all of the Democrat presidents the pyramid had been inverted with the point down. Fewer decisions are made at the lower levels of government. Most of the decisions are about running the government, including the military, has moved to the higher levels of government and into the Whitehouse itself. e.g. LBJ ran the Nam war out of the whitehouse, making commend decisions that should have been reserved for levels of command down to the individual unit.

The attempt to gain glory is a ego gratification reserved for the sociopath.

I was taking a course in political science, and, predicted the assination of Kennedy to the professor. It was the professor who informed me of the assination as I happened to meet him in the science building. (I think he hunted me up to inform me.) He wanted to know how I knew. I told him it was easy when you read all that was happening in the country and how many people, and organization, were totally unhappy with the Kennedy administration and the Democrats in general.

I will give Kennedy credit for attempting to enlarge the civil rights of the southernly oppressed. However, it should have been done gradually, and with more court action. It would have lowered his profile But getting personal credit is what he wanted because the end result was about obtaining political power by impressing the largest voting block. Change was coming, and would have probably come as fast, or faster, without the riots had government worked in a determined steady persistent way that demonstrated resolve to all. But no, Kennedy had to grandstand in his attempt for self glorification. It has always been questioned if Lee Harvey Oswald was the true assin, but that is another discussion. Horses are given blinders for when they plow the fields or race, because it limits their side vision

When it comes to the politics of our country, people should not wear political blinders which limit their vision of our leaders. Both parties have problems and limits to their approach in government. Bush was not as bad and Obama is not as good as some of the Democrats claim.

Now that I have muddied the water; you should be more confused than when I started.

JR

[N2SEX46]

JR,

I'll play Devil's advocate for Kennedy. You and I are obviously close to the same age and I remember the things and events that went on during our younger days. I was a young idealistic (liberal?) who wanted "not to ask what my country could do for me, what could I do for my country"). Down South, I was thrown into a Selma jail for being a "nigger loving yankee hippy." Those gentlemen in their khaki sheriff and police uniforms (think stereotype the late 60'd-early 70's Sheriff for Dodge autos, "You're in a heap of trouble boy!") had no use for us white kids coming down there to help. The Episcopalian priest I was in contact there was murdered. Now, that said, as Kennedy's advocate, it was Dr.King who forced Kennedy to move quicker, much , much more quickly than JFK wanted. They were not fond of JFK, obviously, but they blamed King for pushing ahead. MLK was tired of the slow progress and he went at the civil rights problem aggressively. JFK and RFK were fuming at MLK, but King's time table prevailed. History tells us all three were shot and LBJ cashed in all his chips to get the 1965 bill signed and into law. From that day, the South went Republican. I became a Republican because of the war and his lies (as you so truthfully and accurately state), not because of civil rights by any means. Since Reagan, a man I thoroughly idolized until his true nature surfaced (give to the rich, and the military industrial complex and the Contras, etc.), then I became a middle of the road conservative who was left by the party. My multi millionaires brothers still idolize him.
The military took awhile to forgive my actions in the South. When I applied for OCS, even though I had a college degree and half way to a masters, they said I was not qualified. My CO told me in confidence he was sure my working with that priest during the turbulent times before I was drafted was the factor. He said I was his best NCO leader he ever had serving under him, I lost no men during my tours. I left Vietnam a sergeant.

I don't disagree with your assessment that Kennedy does get some credit for attempting to enlarge the civil rights of the southernly oppressed, I do truly agree that he should have done things more gradually, which I believe he wanted. But MLK and his coalitions were not willing to go gradually. That is my viewpoint from my prospective from being down there. BTW, I was released on the condition that I leave the South (not just Alabama) and return home for the draft which I did. I was escorted to the MEPS Center across the street from the Post Office and Union Station (memories anyone?).

One last thing about Reagan, also I perceive in agreement with your view of him. I truly believe he was the happiest man ever to sit in the White House. This was his greatest role and I don't believe he or his dragon lady wife ever regreted anything other than having to leave at the end of his eight years. Especially Nancy having to turn over the First Lady mantle to Mrs. Bush. Nancy and Barbara were anything but friends, but that's another story. Thanks, JR.

[catnipdipper]

Well after a lot more coffee it still doesn't work for me and I am still confused by your views?

Norman worked for the 1st Bush in the 1st invasion of Iraq and not George W?

[JRLawrence]

Originally Posted by N2SEX46

JR,.... as Kennedy's advocate, it was Dr.King who forced Kennedy to move quicker, much , much more quickly than JFK wanted..... MLK was tired of the slow progress and he went at the civil rights problem aggressively. ..... History tells us all three were shot and LBJ cashed in all his chips to get the 1965 bill signed and into law. From that day, the South went Republican.....

I don't disagree with your assessment ....But MLK and his coalitions were not willing to go gradually.

All the above is very true!

By the way, during this time I had a good friend receive a broken arm from a thrown brick during a gathering at Old Miss. I too was called a Nigger Lover by conservative preachers. There was much more unrest at this time than the newspapers want to tell us about; it was tearing the country apart. My point is that much of this could have been prevented if Kennedy had been more aggressive in helping the cause of civil rights. He dragged his feet on the matter, and was reluctant to carry out some of the things he had promised the civil rights movement that helped him gain office. Would he have failed without them? Probably because of the anticatholic push by conservative religious groups in the country. That is why MLK pushed, because the movement did not get what they were promised; they were used to get Kennedy elected, and they knew it. He played them to gain power.

The civil rights termoil lessened by the actions of LBJ when he cranked up the war in Nam. For a reason why this statement applies read the book "The Prince" Niccolò Machiavelli. Machiavelli goes into detail about how a nations problems can be forgotten in a time of war. If a nation has problems (civil rights problems) they are forgotten by going to war. LBJ did just that.

Originally Posted by N2SEX46

....The military took awhile to forgive my actions in the South. When I applied for OCS, even though I had a college degree and half way to a masters, they said I was not qualified. My CO told me in confidence he was sure my working with that priest during the turbulent times before I was drafted was the factor. He said I was his best NCO leader he ever had serving under him, I lost no men during my tours. I left Vietnam a sergeant.

This is strange about your CO. Sounds like more military BS to me. I don't think you made a formal application, or someone lost the paper work. Maybe your CO wanted to keep you where you were.

I was quickly made a sergeant, and drew independent duty out of boot camp. I bypassed the normal schools and requirement for gaining rank. After a bad injury in the field and time in a hospital I applied for OCS. I met with a review board conducted by a Major who worked for an outside agency connected with our work. I still remember some of the stupid questions about who was John Birch, and who was Jim Crow. As I left the room I could hear his comment as I was closing the door: "Damn it we have to approve his application, we don't have a choice. He already has a college degree and graduate work."

Until then, I didn't know that the military was required to approve every applicant for OCS with a college degree.

JR