Habee: 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. Qwark
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.
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? QWark
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? arghhh! Qwark
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)."
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 ....
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...