With the release of President Bush’s book “Decision points” it has re-ignited a debate and questions that have been occurring for years now. Questions of integrity and honesty along with what happens behind the scene in Washington. This of course is not the first book dealing with that period, over the years in my quest to actually understand what exactly happened and to understand what was the mindset that led this country into the actions it took, I have read many books already and they vary in the conclusions and facts.
I have been thinking whether I would want to read what he had to say? It is a point of view in the entire subject, to help to get a grasp on the mindset. Not sure of the honest within it and will admit that having came to conclusions before the release. That my thoughts and conclusions would not be tainted or to have the ability to read and /or accept what would be stated within it.
But I do try to look at what is written in such books with a honest and reasonable mindset. Over the years I have read several books, most were from the point of view that was not supportive of the administration. And a few were totally over the edge on their explanations of certain facts and realities. Only that which I could verify as factual and truth is accepted. The books I’ve read have ranged from totally partisan to that of totally conspiracy theory.
A point that was made in one book was truly remarkable, to charge with treason President Bush for with intent endangering the American public by calling up the National Guard. Since many National Guard are also law enforcement officers and by calling them up it made a shortage of Police Officers on the street. This though sounding logistical is a stretch and distracting from the factual and what is truly at stake.
President Bush’s book as portrayed by both side of the opinion media has so far been just that nothing but opinion that is either supportive or condemning of him and his book. The stated facts or mindset that are in the book will be subject to fact checks. If done honestly some will be found to be delusional or an awakening as to what really happened. I would say it will not conclude the issue by continue it. Which is what I am suspecting is the intent, it is something that will fall into the line from a Few good men.
“You can not handle the truth!”
As to what truths there are? It is either that Bush was not as one side saw him and he did actually perform as he should have when the reality, true and facts are known. Or he performed as this country’s worst nightmare, that a delusional mentally ill person became the President of the United States. An extreme ideologue who’s reality was more of his own creation not based on the reality or known facts.
I will once again say it, what he and his administrate stated was not so much a knowingly lie. They actually believe it to be the case, it is now that after the facts are better known that it is apparent that it was not the case.
Now I will interject an example of the incident, a person hearing voices is sure it is true and a fact.
If they take a tape record and tape the voices, you will be hearing from the tape a empty sound of static.
But they will still be hearing the voices now coming from the tape. Nothing is proven to either person hearing the tape except for confirming what they already had concluded.
I have been stating it for years now, that the final conclusion to it all is, that it will not be in the best interest of the country and its people to have a final conclusion! What would the effect be if there was a final conclusion? A serious and honest investigation of the available facts and realities? If that investigation concluded that the worst was the truth, it would shake the very concept of what this country is believed to be. Of what we as Americans are believed by ourselves to be. We are not the aggressor we are the one who will stand up to the aggressors. The blow to our national soul would be devastating and could even undermine our vary Governing system. Faith once proved as false brings the questioning of our vary existence as a people.
If the conclusion is that indeed what happened was correct, it would divide the country into a hard and firm two combating faction since one side would be affirmed in their belief that the Government is corrupted and only out for themselves.
So the answer will be that nothing will truly be answered.
PrairiePopulistsAndProgressives.net 
I watched the old movie this morning with Jimmy Stewart – Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Does anyone else remember this movie?’
While watching it, I thought that politics has not really changed all that much. But one thing has changed – in the movie it was only one guy that ran the political machine in the home state.
In today’s politicis – it is corporations running the political machine.
But one section of that movie really got me to thinking – it was when the lone newspaper in his home state sent out young boys to deliver the only paper willing to print what Mr. Smith was doing during his filibuster of the Senate.
There were scenes of grown men, acting on behalf of the one-man governed political machine, actually knocking down these young boys and taking away their newspapers with the truth. These men were also willing to run over these young boys with their cars while they were delivering the truth to the people while riding their bikes and pulling wagons.
This was a very vivid picture of what happens when the freedom of the press is not allowed or – in our today’s political world – the press is nothing more than a bunch of corporations themselves.
And when the so-called political players can do and say whatever they want -is it really the American way?
Or is it just – as I suspect this book will be – is just an attempt to rewrite history according to whatever corporation controls the writer and their followers?
Yeah we often wish our elected officials were Mr. Smith and that we had a Government where the like of Mr. Smith could make such a difference.
One night at work I got into a discussion with a Democrat and it got to be contentious.
He said the sole reason and logic for the invasion was greed and over oil.
When I tried to interject that it was not that simplistic and there were factors involved that was more Ideologist than simply corporate greed.
He would not hear of it and refused to listen to any more.
We often if not prefer to only be willing to accept the simplest answers as to the cause of a problem.
I have no doubt that for some involved it was greed that was their motivation for being involved.
But those were not the ones who had made the decision to invade.
They simply saw the opportunity to make money in the adventure.
It is a lot more acceptable to believe it was simply human greed rather then it was a small group of ideologists who were able to finally obtain the White House to carry out their own desires and plans.
As far as invading Iraq — the plan was available on the internet, the names of the men who made the plan, the order in which the countries would be invaded, the goal of America dominating militarily. There is no secret behind the invasion of Iraq. There are many people who believe varied reasons, but the facts were detailed long before bush the lesser was even elected.
I watched bush on Oprah yesterday. When I heard him say the financial collapse took him by total surprise, that he had no hint, I decided he was worse than even I had thought! A total and complete idiot! A man who went onandon about how he was keeping America safe didn’t have a clue? If that is the truth we’ve probably never witnessed such incompetence. He quickly went on to point out that he had warned in advance about Freddie and Fanny, and to his credit, he didn’t blame the entire collapse of our financial system on that one problem. Oprah asked him if we came close to a Depression and he said yes — in fact he said it with emphasis.
Bush was a less intelligent and more sophmoric version of Ronald Reagan. I don’t think he knew much about anything, except the way things work in Washington. I think he had some aversion to the way things worked in Washington because he would have seen it for most of his life and he is a man of action without compromise. The way things USED to work in Washington involved compromise. If his administration changed anything, it was in the way things are done by Presidents and those that surround them. But he was courted to run and surrounded as President by people who all shared an agenda, part of which fnord referred to above.
Bush was a dumber, more immature puppet than Reagan but there is no doubt that he was a puppet. But then, I believe Obama is too–he is just much more subtle and sophisticated.
In your thread header you say, “A serious and honest investigation of the available facts and realities? If that investigation concluded that the worst was the truth, it would shake the very concept of what this country is believed to be.”
I disagree! I think exposing the truth would make us a stronger country and a more unified country. Yes, there would be some who would continue to defend bush the lesser and not believe the facts, but they would be so few and the majority would know what we have to guard against in order to remain America.
I’d like to agree except that the truth is already out there and still the American public is, for the most part, ignorant.
If anyone doesn’t know what is going on it’s because they don’t want to. Someone could write a book about the last ten years and call it “America in Denial” because that is the state we are in.
fnord, as much as I would like to agree, I can’t. Not for the reason Paula states, because it is my firm conviction that the “truth” is a subjective thing, and regardless of how one feels, will never be “out there” to the satisfaction of all.
The facts aren’t all out, and will not be (if at all) until well after the end of my life. Without the facts, the “truth” will not be ascertainable.
From her post, Paula would not agree with me. Such is life. I’m not sure that if all the facts were presented that we, as a nation, could deal with them in toto and the reasonable conclusions that could be drawn from them.
What I found somewhat ironic is how GW Bush stated he could not send in federal help for Katrina due to the governor not asking for it. Bush stated he was prevented by law from stepping in.
That may have been the protocol at the time of Katrina but what I find so ironic is this:
Bush was so concerned about breaking federal law when it came to helping Americans in the midst of the worse hurrican in history but Bush had no problem bending any federal laws when it came to wiretapping Americans or that little thing called invading Iraq?
But I guess if I had to live with those decisions he made, I’d have to justify anyway I could.
I don’t think Bush was like Reagan at all. Bush was a geniune Evangelical Christian – Reagan only used that group to get their votes.
But they were both of the NeoConservatives line of thinking.
Reagan had the gift of the silver tongue – whereas GWB was lucky if he got the sentence out correctly.
But I see GWB as having almost finishing the decimation of the middle classs whereas Reagan was the one that started that particular war.