• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

George Bush Book 'Decision Points' Lifted From Advisers' Books

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
:lamo:lamo

What a phony, he takes other peoples writings and passes them off as his own.

Crown also 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 jobs illuminate something shallower and less surprising about Bush's character: He's too lazy to write his own memoir.
...

George Bush Book 'Decision Points' Lifted From Advisers' Books
 
I'm not seeing the issue here, since they are taken from notes from meetings. Furthermore, if they are properly cited, then everything is fine. The man ran things like a delegation managerial style, so it is unsurprising that is likewise going to influence the creation of the book. Lastly, I cannot tell you how many times I can run into similar statements quoted in similar ways to prove similar points. Some of this overlap is necessary.

I think the author of the post was looking too hard for controversy.
 
Last edited:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bill_clinton_calls_george_bush_book_rP7dcH3NlRVKAHR0dY4eTM

the former president has received a rave from a fellow White House alumnus, Bill Clinton.

"'Decision Points' is well-written, and interesting from start to finish. I think people of all political stripes should read it," Clinton said in a statement released Friday. "George W. Bush also gives readers a good sense of what it's like to be president, to take the responsibilities of the office seriously, do what you think is right, and let history be the judge. The book may not change the minds of those who disagree with decisions President Bush made, but it will help you to understand better the forces that molded him, and the convictions that drove him to make those decisions."

Bubba liked the book
 
Last edited:
And Henry Kissinger (who made a similar comment on Douglas Feith's memoir) is a fantastic bureaucratic knife-fighter and statesman....what's your point?
 
And Henry Kissinger (who made a similar comment on Douglas Feith's memoir) is a fantastic bureaucratic knife-fighter and statesman....what's your point?
My post was in response to another poster; it's pretty self explanatory. :roll:
 
from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections.
Talk about grasping straws. As if people go around filling books with word for word quotes they've committed to memory over the past eight years.

To think that left wing organizations have dozens or hundreds of interns scouring the book for damning little tidbits... and this is the best they're able to come up with.

It's actually quite comical.
 
Last edited:
My post was in response to another poster; it's pretty self explanatory. :roll:

It was self-explanatory in retrospect. It should have been obvious to me that you had no clever retort, so you went with whatever you had in your head at the time.
 
:lamo:lamo

What a phony, he takes other peoples writings and passes them off as his own.




George Bush Book 'Decision Points' Lifted From Advisers' Books

Oh for cripe sakes. That's the Huffington Post. It just received a ton of money from George Soros. Ariana is also a good friend of his. Soros poured millions, maybe billions of dollars into the 2004 election because he absolutely dispises Bush. Bush still won. This is his way to try to get even.
Got an unbiased source?
 
Oh for cripe sakes. That's the Huffington Post. It just received a ton of money from George Soros. Ariana is also a good friend of his. Soros poured millions, maybe billions of dollars into the 2004 election because he absolutely dispises Bush. Bush still won. This is his way to try to get even.
Got an unbiased source?

How does your bizarro interpretation of actual events change what Mr. Bush has purportedly written? Are you supposing that the Huffington Post forced him to put these words in his book? :screwy
 
It IS rather difficult to take this article seriously when it's so filled through with sneering nastiness and massively stolen bases. And in this sentence, we get quite a bit of both:

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, and sifting through reams of paper." Bush also collaborated on the book with his former speechwriter, Christopher Michel.


In this, the guy assumes that any passages which correspond to things in, say, Tommy Franks's memoir must have been taken from a Google search and not from a perusal of the book itself. He repeats this charge a few times throughout the article.

And then there's the snotty adding of the "" at the end of "internet."

And so on. This kind of juvenility is rife throughout the whole thing.

I'm sure this fits pbrauer's definition of "serious journalism," but it's nothing more than a poorly-constructed hit piece. It's interesting that Bush himself, the man this jagoff obviously feels so superior to, would never be so ridiculously childish or petty.
 
I'm sure this fits pbrauer's definition of "serious journalism," .
Where did I say it was serious journalism? I do find it interesting, however.
 
How does your bizarro interpretation of actual events change what Mr. Bush has purportedly written? Are you supposing that the Huffington Post forced him to put these words in his book? :screwy

No, I'm saying they are nit picking because of who he is. They are seriously biased and probably found great joy in picking his book apart. Maybe hoping for a bonus from their sugar daddy.
Got any other source besides HP, Media Matters or anything not funded by Soros?
 
Here's another little gem:

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.
Who the hell would read that passage and come away thinking Bush was recounting a private discussion?? Much less "a dramatic and untold coming-together" ???

It's a good thing the super-sleuths did their Google research and "proved" that Bush lifted the anecdote from the Washington Post. :lol:
 
But pbrauer... please keep these threads coming. I do like to giggle, and sadly, tonight was the last episode of Politically Incorrect until January.

It's a good thing Michael Moore was on the panel this week! Just about everything that came out of his mouth was either wrong or just plain stupid.
 
This is the kind of stuff President Obama has told us to read. Yes, he said we should read huffington post. What garbage.
I bet he'll love this massive hit piece on Bush.




But if you already bought Bush's book thinking you were getting only his own thoughts, you haven't entirely wasted your money. Finding lifted passages in Bush's book is like an Easter egg hunt. Look for passages with a number of quotes back to back and then slap the passage into Google Books or plagiarism detection software you might have access to. The slideshow below shows what HuffPost has found so far. If you find any more, send the passage to ryan@huffingtonpost.com and we'll verify it and add it to the list.
 
But pbrauer... please keep these threads coming. I do like to giggle, and sadly, tonight was the last episode of Politically Incorrect until January.

It's a good thing Michael Moore was on the panel this week! Just about everything that came out of his mouth was either wrong or just plain stupid.

Red-Eye 's on Fox in 45 min. Gutfeld is funnier than Maher any day and he doesn't make you want to throw stuff at the TV.
 
No, I'm saying they are nit picking because of who he is. They are seriously biased and probably found great joy in picking his book apart. Maybe hoping for a bonus from their sugar daddy.

Ok, if this is what passes for logic in your world, which "sugar daddy" were the Republiturds sucking up to when they "picked apart" Obama for any number of things, for example, his not wearing flippin' flag pin on certain particular days, hmmm?

Got any other source besides HP, Media Matters or anything not funded by Soros?

WTF are you talking about? I've not introduced nor supported any sources. :screwy This is about Dubya putting his name to a VERY poorly ghostwritten book.

And before you get all up in my face about ghostwritten books, you should know I have three to my name. I kinda know what I'm talking about here.
 
Red-Eye 's on Fox in 45 min. Gutfeld is funnier than Maher any day and he doesn't make you want to throw stuff at the TV.
Yes, he can definitely get frustrating! But I also think it's hilarious when he starts all that oozing and squinting in his chair as he's making what he thinks is some brilliant insight...I mean, he's just full of himself...and then out pops something just totally idiotic.

Like his take on the massive election defeat:
Bill Maher:
What does that tell you? You know, it tells me that this election was lost when Obama didn’t back the public option. To me, that was the one key thing that said to the people – You know what? This is no different than the Al Gore Democrats, the old Al Gore playbook. "Let’s run from our achievements. And let’s not stand for what we believe in."
Yes Bill... people fled in droves to Conservative Republicans and Tea Party candidates because they were pissed about the Dems not standing up for themselves and not backing the public option.
:lamo:lamo
 
Yes, he can definitely get frustrating! But I also think it's hilarious when he starts all that oozing and squinting in his chair as he's making what he thinks is some brilliant insight...I mean, he's just full of himself...and then out pops something just totally idiotic.

Like his take on the massive election defeat:

Yes Bill... people fled in droves to Conservative Republicans and Tea Party candidates because they were pissed about the Dems not standing up for themselves and not backing the public option.
:lamo:lamo

He's not alone in his stupidy. I've heard lots of them say it was because they didn't do "enough". The whole time I was screaming SLOW Down, Please slow down. Whoa, STOP DAMN it we're going off a cliff! I'm so thankful that I can breathe a bit now. There's not much chance now that they'll be cramming through a cap and trade bill or any other monstrosity.
 
But pbrauer... please keep these threads coming. I do like to giggle, and sadly, tonight was the last episode of Politically Incorrect until January.

It's a good thing Michael Moore was on the panel this week! Just about everything that came out of his mouth was either wrong or just plain stupid.

It's actually Real Time, and I can't wait until it comes back. Maher is hillarious.
 
He's not alone in his stupidy. I've heard lots of them say it was because they didn't do "enough".
Hahah... To support that claim, many (both Maher and Moore tonight) make the bone-headed assumption that because moderate blue dogs were voted out and liberal dems were not - that the country as a whole prefers liberals. Never mind what states blue dogs come from, or why the blue dogs were elected in the first place.
 
Back
Top Bottom