Bush Biography Paints Unflattering Portrait of POTUS 43

George%20W%20Bush[1]“Why did I sign on to this proposal, if i don’t understand what it does?” George W. Bush is quoted by Matt Latimer in his new tell-all book, Speech-less: Tales of a White House Survivor.  Allegedly, Bush asked this question when it almost dawned on him what the bank bail out proposal was supposed to do.

Bush’s stupidity, sounds more astounding than even I had ever imagined.  See a brief review here.  Thanks to Lilac for this post idea.

iggydonnelly

19 Comments

Filed under Book Reviews, George W. Bush

19 responses to “Bush Biography Paints Unflattering Portrait of POTUS 43

  1. Before I go read about this I want to stop and compliment you on the choice of bush photo. You did good, Iggy! 🙂

  2. G-stir

    Is this guy a mouth breather or what!!

    There must a contest somewhere we can enter him in, he’s be a shoo-in!

    Wet his lips and he’d stick to the wall for days.

  3. 6176746f6c6c65

    To me, the question asked is one that should have been asked, and should be asked more frequently by Presidents. I harbour no illusion that there were more than a dozen in the entire country who really understood what that bill was to do, nor did I like it. What is distressing is that W didn’t trust his people to give him any background from which he might form some understanding in a general way of what was being attempted by the bill.

    • wicked

      Do you really think Dubya had the smarts to understand much of anything?

      His inability to focus on anything for any length of time makes me wonder if he isn’t ADD.

  4. Agreed 6. I think the greater point is that the order of action was just a little bit backward. A better approach might be 1) understanding, then 2) signing.

  5. 6176746f6c6c65

    True, iggy; thus, my comment about not trusting (which it appears to me that he didn’t).

  6. Another excerpt from the book of this thread:

    “Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

    Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

    “What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

    Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

    Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

    “Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”

    Bush seemed to equate the conservative movement — the astonishing growth of conservative political strength that took place in the decades after Barry Goldwater’s disastrous defeat in 1964 — with the fortunes of Bauer, the evangelical Christian activist and former head of the Family Research Council whose 2000 presidential campaign went nowhere.

    Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

    “Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

    The Oval Office is no place for a low-ranking White House staffer to get into an argument with the president of the United States about the state of the Republican Party — or about any other subject, for that matter. Latimer made the changes the president wanted. When Bush appeared at CPAC, he made no mention of the conservative movement. In fact, he said the word “conservative” only once, in the last paragraph.”

  7. G-stir

    “George , you’re the ex-Prez; quit acting like Cheeta!”

  8. It seems to me that H.W. Bush did not look so primately. I wonder if W.’s problems along those lines comes from Barbara’s side of the family.

  9. tosmarttobegop

    Every book I have read stated the same thing about Bush. He is not a details man, did not want details and grew bored easily during briefings. He was like Boss Hog on the Dukes of Hazards “handle it handle it!”.

    He thought or pretended everything was his idea and the underlings were to make it so.

    But to be honest another book on Bush means nothing, kind of like watching the same documentary on the Titanic. You know before how it will end and rehashing it does no good.

    Bush was no conservative and could not recognize the one he had in his cabinet. Neo or otherwise.
    When they suggested going after Saddam all he thought was it sounded like a good idea.
    Thought process ended there.

    • lilacluvr

      Which is why it was so surprising to learn that Bush refused to pardon Scooter Libby before he left office.

      I wonder if Bush’s refusal to pardon Libby was due to some kind of moral code or to just let Cheney know that ‘Junior’ did not care anymore?

  10. wicked

    All of this is why Dubya was chosen as the presidential nominee to run against Gore. With a little fix (the Supreme Court), they were able to procure a monkee-see-monkee-do for the WH. It all fits into my conspiracy theory.

    • tosmarttobegop

      I will answer you with what I was told while talking about the Neo-Conservatives.
      “Its not a conspiracy if they do it in the open!”

  11. I think he looked like that too when the shoe was flying at him!

    • lilacluvr

      I have to give credit where credit is due, Bush did have good reflexes – especially when that second shoe came flying across his head!

      Hey, even that Iraqi guy got prison time for throwing a shoe at a visiting foreign leader and then Joe Wilson only gets a slap on the wrist for his outburst calling his own president a liar in the middle of a speech in the middle of a speech to the joint Congress?

  12. 6176746f6c6c65

    lilac,

    Congresscritters (tip of the hat to PrairiePond) have a qualified immunity; Rep. Wilson violated rules of civility and decency, but did nothing criminal or actionable at civil suit (thanks to the immunity and NY Times v. Sullivan by his outburst. Had he thrown a shoe, an assault, there might still be nothing that could be done criminally, due to the immunity. There are, it is often reported, many members of the Congress who have avoided DUI charges when stopped in transit to the Capitol for a vote, etc., when the Congress is in session.