From the “Conversation with George Bush” in Saskatoon this afternoon, revealing that his father agonized over the media criticism his son was receiving;
“He’d read the editorial pages, he’d watch the nightly news, and I didn’t. I mean, why watch the nightly news when you are the nightly news?”
(Honourable mention: “I was in Bucharest, Romania to give a speech to the Romanians…. obviously.”)
I see that BDS is alive & well amongst the Looney Left!
Too bad President Bush didn’t read the editorials, then maybe he would have fought back against the smears effectively instead of ignoring them.
At their cores both bush potuses were decent honourable well-meaning men. The son was perhaps more strong-willed, but then circumstances required he be so. (he grew up a lot post 911). However they both had two similar flaws:
They could not say no to people and they had very loose political philosophies.
Thus, in many ways, they are very similar to ed Stelmach.
Eh, sure, he could have fought the smears, but I rather admire him for not sinking to their level. He had a country to run and two wars to fight – treating crazies would have been a waste of his time, and would only have generated more attention for their claims.
Gord – “loose political phylosophies”. Really?
I for one would love for you to expand on that dangling thought. Some examples, please.
Robert W – thanks for the link to that story about the “300” protesters at the Bush venue. I was there and saw maybe 150 protesters. Any idea where the other 150 were hiding?
I asked one protester if he would also protest Obama if he came to town. He looked puzzled…then asked why. I told him Obama had been using drones to bomb women and babies in East Packistan…again he looked puzzled. I said “ah right…you only watch the CBC and CNN.
He looked perplexed as I walked on in to see GWB.
I very much enjoyed it and it was obvious to me the Conservative people who don’t watch Foxnews that attended this event where pleasantly surprised and impressed with this humble, realist, principled man who enjoyed self deprecating humor.
He sees himself as a flawed but blessed man who did the best he could with the information provided him.
The protesters on the other hand, don’t see those jumping to their deaths on 9/11 as their brothers and sisters, as Bush did!
ivbinconned – I agree with your description of GWB’s talk today. I felt privileged to be in the presence of a strong, principled man who faced some tough choices on a number of issues and did not bend to the terrorists.
I particularly liked his response to the issue of torture. They waterboarded 3 terrorists and with the information they got from that – saved many lives. I’ve no reason to disbelieve what he said.
My wife gave me a ticket to the event for our wedding anniversary. Couldn’t think of a better gift.
As for the protesters – well – the term “useful idiots” comes to mind.
yeah right…
what in God’s name is a ‘loose political philosophy” ?
andycanuck said, “Too bad President Bush didn’t read the editorials, then maybe he would have fought back against the smears effectively instead of ignoring them.”
But aren’t we criticizing another sitting president for doing just that in his little war on Fox?
perhaps the other (or invisible) 150 protesters are the editorial staff back at CBC World Headquarters who were really just there, “in spirit”… ?
And here I thought the protestors were decrying the 1,000,000 Iraqis killed by Clinton … and the simultaneous enrichment of UN officials during oil for food.
I was there too! (Third balcony, front row centre).
My favourite quote came near the end “Serving something greter than yourself is noble”
Though I think that may have had origins elswhere.
Did any of you that went to see Bush see any protesters with the black anarchist flags?
Bush did far more for aid and AID’s in Africa than any previous president, gave more support and facilitation for faith based ininitiatatives than any former president. And personaly he and his wife personaly have given far far more to chatities than Gore and the Clintons combined.
These actions follow faith. It is the “fruit!”
This is why some hate him and developed BDS! They hate anyone with convictions.
There was one group in the third balcony that I thought for certain would turn out to be hecklers. They never clapped or stood when others did. One of them was wearing a ‘Che’ t-shirt.
I’m not a U.S. citizen so I can’t vote to choose the American President.
I think that McCain should have been the president in 2000.
One of what ifs of history I will always wonder about.
That said, as flawed as Bush’s terms were, I shudder to think what might have been if Gore or Kerry had been elected.
And for that reason alone I am grateful we didn’t have to endure the Manbearpig or the Lurch presidencies.
rmgk – I know that not all who attended the event today were pro-Bush but what I do appreciate is that no one heckled or insulted the President and that reflects well on all of us.
To those of you who were there, did not like what you heard but kept your mouths shut – thank you.
I also wondered about why and how he dealt with the insane media coverage of his presidency.
I think part of the reason for ignoring it was simply he respected the freedom of the press.
(are you listening Obama?)
But as he mentioned at the end, much of it was just noise, he knew he was doing what he was sure was right in the fight for freedoms and democracy in the long term so their slings and arrows didn’t hurt much.
He also mentioned that his father wasn’t much an influence in decision making because he didn’t have the same access to information that W did.
Neither did the mad dogs in the media and the left, so their opinions were not based on full knowledge either.
That said, it must have been tough to endure such deranged hate from the left.
My hat is off to him for that for sure.
As goofy as the protesters are, they don’t deserve all the blame, after all they were fed lies by Dan Rather and co, though many of them should know better.
At the same time I think many on the left excused Dan Rather and the media for telling lies about Bush because he was so evil.
And how did they know how evil he was?
Why Dan Rather told them!
I look forward to Bush’s book, it sounds like it will be very interesting.
lance: “andycanuck said, “Too bad President Bush didn’t read the editorials, then maybe he would have fought back against the smears effectively instead of ignoring them.”
But aren’t we criticizing another sitting president for doing just that in his little war on Fox?”
A president can defend himself against attacks that are unjustified or simply wrong without trying to destroy a news network or private citizens who disagrees with you. I think andycanuck is talking about something quite different from what Obama has undertaken.
“rmgk – I know that not all who attended the event today were pro-Bush but what I do appreciate is that no one heckled or insulted the President and that reflects well on all of us.
To those of you who were there, did not like what you heard but kept your mouths shut – thank you.
Posted by: a different bob at October 22, 2009 12:00 AM ”
Good point.
Re: “loose political philosophy” – while I agree with most of the pro-Bush comments here (he is a decent, if flawed man; he did his best with the information he was provided; etc.), I also agree that his political philosophy was weak, to the extent it existed at all. He was elected promising modesty both in domestic policy and foreign relations, but increased spending like no president since Johnson (of course, Obama’s profligacy makes Bush’s tenure the Good Old Days), brought “nation building” to a new level, and often offended friends and allies (steel, softwood, thickened borders). Obviously, 9/11 was a watershed event, but someone with a developed political philosophy would have reacted more wisely. Bush seemed to be making things up as he went along, working from his “heart” and “gut” – not from actual information, deep-seated, supportable convictions, and painstaking analysis combining the two (cf. Reagan). His presidency was much more reactive than proactive; emblematic was that there was no clear plan for Iraq after the Mission was Accomplished. Putin (with the good heart) fooled him completely, Iran is about ready to construct a nuclear weapon, and North Korea has. Bush’s first reaction to any exigency was almost always massive federal spending (e.g. Katrina), and he sold out his avowed limited-government principles repeatedly (prescription drugs). These reveal a “loose” – if not completely absent – political philosophy.
Notwithstanding, I voted for Bush three times – in the primary in 2000, and twice in general elections, and for McCain (well, actually against Zero) in 2008. But not least among Bush’s sins was the wreckage he left of his party; only the catastrophe that is the Obama administration has breathed life back into the Republicans.
Re: “I was in Bucharest, Romania to give a speech to the Romanians…. obviously.”
I suppose Obama, if he ever deigned to speak to Romanians (people who actually like the US), would try to insert a passage in Roman…
This was a terrific presentation today. It was surreal seeing such a famous figure speaking just a few rows ahead of me. He was very charming, connecting well with the audience. I also found him quite forceful in explaining his more contentious policies, including waterboarding and TARP. Forceful, but not defensive. I enjoyed myself immensely. (Thanks for the ticket, Michele!)
What I mean by the descriptor “loose political philosophy”:
Both Bushes (and Stelmach) are not strongly conservative or moderate or libertarian. The bushes could be considered big government republicans of the Rockefeller mould except many times they would act contrary to that tradition especially on social issues and especially so in the case of GWB. Both Bushes talked tough on taxes and spending when it was politically expedient to do so, but both had their greatest failings in this area – GB 1 on taxes and GB 2 on spending. Their political philosophy was very loosely held. They were wishy-washy to the point of spinelessness. Thus we got the appointment of Souter to the SC by the dad and runaway earmarks and fanny mae/freddy mac under the sons watch. A politician who held to his political philosophy more firmly, like Reagan, would never have made such mistakes.
Well done PabloNH.
The ship of a (democratic) state, through inertia, will continue in the same general direction for a time even when the CEO at the helm changes. Obama is learning this fact.
I like term limits, wish we had them in Canada! But in a Republic you don’t turn that boat around in just 8 years. Especially when an event like 9/11 happens.
The democrats supported his response…but with their usual short memories and opportunism, quickly forgot.
For Liberals…history starts every morning!
One thing not mentioned here yet was his reference to Japan. His, and the Japanese leader during his term noted that their fathers had been enemies fighting each other…and today…they are friends!!
The bomb changed minds.
Maybe the same technique to bring radical islam to its knees…is in order.
rmgk: I think they were university students there on a class assignments. A lot of them were writing in notepads.
As for my impression … I was terribly dissapointed in Bush … there was no teleprompter … the hubris!
Must be nice to be able to spend the summers back at the Bohemian Grove. The p’ssing contests, meetings and a few mock satanic rituals, not that I have anything against different kinds of worship. GWB could parlay a number of his best Bohemian Grove stories in his talks to the Brethren.
News Flash – stop being so humble. Comments of that quality deserve to be associated with a real name.
I’m pleased so many SDAs went to see “W” and wish I could have joined you. His spending and immigration policies weren’t endearing qualities but he kept us safe which was the main concern. He put U. S. priorities over the opinions of old Europe which any leader of character must do.
“I suppose Obama, if he ever deigned to speak to Romanians (people who actually like the US), would try to insert a passage in Roman…”
Don’t you mean Latin? lol…
I agree with the “loose political philosophy” statement. Bush relied on the people around him heavily…too heavily in my opinion.
Beyond that I think the war was poorly managed. Billions of dollars went missing…the waste that went on was extreme. I am assuming that America’s current “stimulus” funds are similarly disappearing at a similar rate.
Meant to mention that during his presidency, I would frequent the GOP web site to view his speeches out of the media limelight. He was typically in his element with smaller groups of thinking individuals, e. g., Chambers of Commerce. He even gave a great speech to some arm of the NAACP. He was of course treated cooly but he did well. His character and warmth was very evident. Naturally the media is not going to cover when he’s doing well. He’ll never be a teleprompter jesus but then “W’s” words mean something.
Kate, sorry but like you, I pirate from AJ as well. He gets the bow. Seems, unlike Bush, he is not allowed into Canada to speak. Must be a religious thing.
how many other american presidents refused to read newspapers?
how many Canadian prime minsters refuse to read newspapers?
majority or minority? is it because they cant or wont?
jist askin’ !!!
Khadafi comes to canada and all I hear from the conservative blogosphere is “where is the left? why aren’t they calling for him to be arrested?”
And then the same thing happens with your favourite war criminal and surprise surprise, where is the right? Why aren’t they calling for him to be arrested?
I think you have a bunch of hypocrites in your ranks, just as much as the left if not more.
Comparing Khadafi to Bush? Quite a stretch there!
And please dispense with the “war criminal” crap. It’s old … it’s unfounded … and it’s downright silly.