Bush's memoir has sold almost as many copies in one month as Clinton's memoir has sold in 6 years. WHY?
A. people think the W book will be funny
B. people are amazed that W could actually write a book
C. people hope to discover if the bad decisions were made by W or Cheney
I think the answer is simple: The majority of Americans believe in a "god thing."
Dumb-as-a-rock dubya proclaimed, as did his controlling father, that this "god thing' guides their lives and decisions.
Dubya screwed up terribly, led by his father, but didn't get his "willy" puffed on in the oval office (golly, wasn't Kennedy banging Marilyn in the whitehouse?).
Dubya appeals to the dumb-as-a-rock believers in mythical "god things." Soooooo...they buy his book.
It sold more because I promoted it. Obviously.
Even former US presidents look to see what IzzyM is publishing next!
Who knows. Especially since there were lots of charges of plagiarism and other wholesale copying.
LOL!! Clinton was super intelligent, but I do believe W is a lot smarter than most folks think. I wonder if Laura helped with the book...
I bet Laura turns out to be one of those great "woman behind the man" stories when history is done sifting through.
I actually read the book and it was SO poorly written, flow-wise and stylistically, I really appreciated that he wrote it himself. There are tons of famous people who hand their book options off to ghost writers or editors, and he clearly didn't do it. Plus it was semi-funny.
Thanks to the impeachment, Clinton's years were already an open book.
Plus there is something very fascinating about a book written in crayon.
If Laura is a "classy" lady, why did she marry "Classless" dubya?
Money? Or did she think she might be able to perform a miracle and educate an obviously boorish member of the Bush clan of oil barons?
Hahahaha...I wonder why she couldn't teach him how to pronounce: noo-klee-er?
My gransdon, 8 yrs old, used to say noo-cue-ler. He learned to say nuclear...first try.
Dubya couldn't learn to pronounce it correctly in 8 yrs.
Is it no wonder we're damn near bankrupt after 8 yrs of dubya lunacy?
Perhaps the concept of love is foreign to you?
timing, I'm sure many found the book under their christmas tree. I think Clinton's book sold more the first week of release than Bush's first week, but his book wasn't published during holiday shopping season.
probably a number of people want to 'understand' the mind of this man. I'm not a fan of Bush W, but will probably read the book at some point. I thought Clinton's My Life was an excellent read, also a considerably more substantial read being almost twice the length.
I also like Laura.
Whatever happened to the trend of First Pets writing memoirs?
I'd like to hear from those cute little westies.
Didn't Barbara Bush's dog write a book?
And Obama can't pronounce "corpsman" or "Massachusetts," and he's supposed to be really smart.
Hukd on fonnics wurkd fer mi!
I bet he will never say those wrong again though.
Um, he should never have gotten them wrong in the first place....
Have you never mispronounced a word? You must be unique.
I'm not President. If I were, and knowing full well that even the slightest gaffes will not go unnoticed, then I think I would at least try to make sure I didn't goof my words.
And I'm sorry, for someone supposedly as intelligent and educated as The Chosen One, mispronouncing "corpsman" or the name of a state is simply inexcusable.
I will say that I certainly never made the claim that there were "57 states"
I bet you're right.
In W's defense, many people have trouble pronouncing "nuclear," as they do with the pronunciation of "realtor." I've heard well educated folks say "relator." My husband can't say "statistics." He knows the word and can spell it, but he always stumbles on it, wanting to add an extra "s." I think sometimes such examples are more of a problem with the tongue than with the brain. lol
That is the problem with CNN and YouTube. You can't say anything and make a mistake without it being played over and over and over. Past presidents probably made as many or more gaffes but since it wasn't played all over the place ad nauseum no one knew or cared.
Obama was in the middle of campaigning and was probably tired, do you really think he believed there are 57 states? And that was almost 3 years ago...the fat lady has sung on that, the one trick pony has died.
But, of course, it's Obama, people want to believe everything he does is wrong and awful and that no one else has ever misspoken and that therefore he is not fit to be president.
"But, of course, it's Obama, people want to believe everything he does is wrong and awful and that no one else has ever misspoken and that therefore he is not fit to be president."
Substitute "Obama" with "Bush" and the paragraph accurately describes the left's treatment of Bush for eight years.
Oh, and you can bet that if Bush had said "57 states" it would still be the subject of ridicule three years later....
Everyone already knew the dirt on Clinton, and we also knew he wasn't going to be sharing any more details in his book. Without the dirt, there isn't very entertaining stuff from the Clinton years. Was he supposed to write about how great the economy was and how competent his staffers were? People don't want to read 100 pages on the proper way to balance the budget.
With W, people were looking for some dirt. What was going on in his head during 9/11? How did he really feel about Dick Cheney? What role did he play in some of the dirty tricks that went on during his tenure (the Plame scandal, Swiftboaters attacking John Kerry, etc). Also, what was his excuse for supporting the deregulation in the banking industry that put our economy on the brink in 2008? People bought his book looking for dirt, excuses, and perhaps even apologies.
A story about a train wreck is much more interesting than one about a kid who fell off his bike.
There's a slight difference between a kid falling off his bike and Bill Clinton perjuring himself in order to deny Paula Jones her day in court....
There's a much greater difference between Clinton's lies and W's. How many innocent civilians and soldiers died as a result of each?
It was about an oil/gas pipeline. NOT freeing oppressed people. In the case of Iraq and Bosnia failed foreign policy led to the death of soldiers and many innocents.
Bush 1 has NAFTA Drafted. Clinton signs it. Clinton has an illegal war in Bosnia. Bush has an illegal war in Iraq. Obama runs against all of Bush 2's policies, yet he continues every single one. The wars, the tax policy, the patriot act, etc, etc. My point is this. We are being missled by both sides. People are voting for what they view as the lessor of two evils. Not a best case scenario.
Should one interpret it as success of the democracy or its failure?
It means there is a problem. That candidates run on issues that divide us into two neat groups for voting reliability. Once elected their politics make for good theater while they serve the interest of lobbyist.
I'm not falling for a simple minded "this or that" game.
I don't feel missled by Obama. He is fighting an iron wall of money...long-held generational money. Robber baron money. Big business/corporate money.
And the right-wing religious Fundies who think they own America.
We would never have Lily Ledbetter, Black farmers settlement, Native American settlement, repeal of DADT, Elizabeth Warren, extended Unemployment, or 9/11 victims aid with the Republicans.
Not to mention, the knowledge we got about the Federal reserve and their dirty dealings. These things would never have happened under a Republican.
Nor do Republicans mention the middle class and working poor. It's all about the upper classes with them.
World of difference.
It was a Democrat that created DADT. It wasn't the boogy man the Left is making it out to be. It was a stroke of genius. It allowed time for the "winning of hearts and minds" while allowing homosexuals to serve. I believe the repeal was shamelessly timed and only meant to serve as a distraction to an angry left who is waiting for all their campaign promises to come to fruition. 9/11 victims recieved MILLIONS under Bush.
The Department of Ag settlements? That's what your touting? Look this guy claimed he was going to end the wars! He has not. He said he would close GTMO...still open. All the D's were railing against the Patriot Act. It still stands. All the things he ran on, he's now running from. There is no hope for change. At least not with this guy.
"9/11 victims recieved MILLIONS under Bush.'
That was blood money, so they wouldn't go after the airlines.
They had to agree to leave the airlines alone when taking that million dollars per family. That is why one woman didn't take it. She called it blood money, not me.
DADT was the bill ALLOWING gays to serve, if you remember. Before that, it was against the law.
The wars, I'm with you...Obama said he would end them, not increase them. I don't know why or what or who we are there for.
But Obama voted for that Patriot Act just like all but 2 members did...he gave Bush that power, now you want him to give it back?
That's WHY people were railing against it in the first place! Once it's there, it's not leaving.
And finally, Gibbs said that closing Gitmo would entail the Republicans in Congress working with the Obama administration.
Call me stupid, but I don't see the Republicans willing to work with Obama any time soon.
I see it as very funny that some would have Obama just do things without the procedures we have set up in this country.
Wouldn't that make him a dictator?
Unitary Executive was Cheney's idea, not Bidens'.
"I don't know why or what or who we are there for."
Here's someone who has some ideas:
"Besides the 911 issue and the fact that there's really no NEW information in the cables, what bothers me is that there's absolutely no mention of the "strategic" reasons the US is at war in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nothing about the Pentagon agenda to foster the secession of oil and mineral rich Balochistan from Pakistan as a US client state - just like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and other former Soviet republics. Nothing about CIA support for the Baloch separatist movement. Nothing about the CIA training young Baloch separatists in bomb making and other terrorist activities to disrupt operations at the Chinese-built Gwadar Port (intended to transport Iranian oil and natural gas via Pakistan to China)."
I blog about this at http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.co … ad-runner/
Perhaps if someone could come up with a lie that George W. Bush told that cost soldiers lives, I'd be willing to talk about it....
Has been discussed ad nauseum. Your denial does not negate the truth.
You're backin a loser.
Yeah, I didn't think you could either. Thanks for playing along....
Bush lied to get us into Iraq - he might not have said it specifically, but it was definitely implied.
Then he attempted to murder the wife of a political dissenter by outing the fact that Plame was a spy.
The man was a sleaze bag.
Here is a list of lies that were presented to us.
Faulty intel is not a lie....it's only a lie if you know it is false when you say it.....nice try.
As for the second, it has a nice black helicopter ring to it, but very little in the way of substance.
Guess I was hoping somebody might being something new to the table....silly me....
They lied, people died.
But the worst part is that we BOUGHT IT and then we RE ELECTED HIM.
If a private entity made the same mistake, it would have been bankrupted immediately.
This is what I referred to earlier. The truth is presented to you; you do as FoxNews commands and deny it.
Birds of a feather....
Yawn, more DNC talking points. Bush is such a moron yet he conned both houses of congress and the leaders of 30 other nations into going to war with Iraq over a lie. Yeah, right.
The man is either the village idiot or diabolical genius....you have to pick one or the other....
i want to address this "faulty intel" nonsense.
Saddam welcomed UN inspectors:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource. … =webiraq05
The UN inspectors said they found NOTHING:
The UN inspectors ACTUALLY CALLED THE US INTEL GARBAGE:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ugandanet@k … 03408.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/ … 7096.shtml
AND THE US LIED ABOUT WHAT THE UN INSPECTORS FOUND:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/29/ric … nspectors/
AND PEOPLE CALL ME A LUNATIC FOR TRYING TO END GOVERNMENT!!!
W lied to us. Our entire Executive branch lied to us.
DEAL WITH IT.
PS: here's a quote from GEORGE TENET, THE CIA DIRECTOR OF THE TIME:
...there was “never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat,”
Sorry, quotes from leftist websites do little to bolster the argument....
How about quotes from former CIA Director George Tenet?
Your definition of "leftist" seems to be a little whacked.
Yeah, i put quotes from the CIA director.
It's amazing you completely shut your brain to this stuff.
Approve of it or not, the war probably made Bush's book of more interest. 911 was probably something else that added to interest. Clinton's presidency ended in a "blaze of foolishness" that involved unprofessional behavior, a stained dress, and the whole lying-to-Congress thing. (A lot of people don't have much interest in what someone so "all about" foolishness has to say.) When all is said and done (and whether they like the person or not), maybe it's still true more people care about the bigger issues than the foolish ones.
he was funny...i would like to read his book too...m sure he would make me laugh...secondly bush gave hope to world that it doesnot require anything special than self belief (no matter how wrong it might be) to become president...he is surely motivation for all ....
Yes a lot of people probably think it will be funny, funny to hear the excuses he comes up with to justify things he did.
Memo to PrettyPanther....is this the same George Tenet that told President Bush that the evidence that Iraq had WMDs amounted to a "slam dunk case."
So which is it?
Saddam welcomed the inspectors
The UN inspectors found nothing.
They pointed out that the info that the US gave them was nonsense.
They called it garbage.
Our government lied.
Saddam welcomed inspectors only after holding them off and delaying them countless times.
So the inspectors found nothing. Big deal. If you re read the UN resolutions, the burden of proof was on Saddam to demonstrate that he had disarmed, providing documentation of the destruction of his WMD arsenal. He refused.
Though Bush was funny, he was not dumb as people think. As an Indian we can say that his decision to attack afghanistan was one of the best decision ever. Certainly people would be willing to buy his book.
he was left with no choice..he had to attack afghanistan...any person in his post might have done that....but attacking Iraq was mistake...secondly bush made mess out of economy...mess which might take years to bring to normal and by that time china would have become too powerful and would call the shots...
by AnnCee 9 years ago
I think it's uncanny and troubling considering his bad attitude toward Israel.
by Susan Reid 7 years ago
I had heard nothing about this until my presentation partner tonight told me "The big news story of the day is Hillary Clinton letting herself go."No mention in the article on the purpose of Mrs. Clinton's trip or anything else of substance. Are we really this surface...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|