April 18, 2017

"I’m beginning to understand why this beautifully published book went to No. 1 on The Times’s nonfiction best-seller list."

"It’s not that people are suddenly nostalgic for Bush.... The success of 'Portraits of Courage'... testifies to our genuine, bipartisan determination to do it better this time — to support healing in all of its forms, even from the president who most made that healing necessary. It reflects our fascination with how leaders process pain and regret...."

From Jonathan Adler's NYT review of George W. Bush's excellent book of paintings.

112 comments:

chuck said...

> even from the president who most made that healing necessary.

Is there anyone who writes for the Times who isn't a self absorbed assh0le? All I can say is that Obama better be a fu@king artistic genius.

themightypuck said...

Didn't know about this book but I'm not gonna lie. I teared up a bit.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

He's definitely improved since the days of painting himself as a quasi-stick figure in the bathtub.

David Begley said...

Backhanded slap at Trump per usual at the NYT.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"> even from the president who most made that healing necessary."

Is there anyone who writes for the Times who isn't a self absorbed assh0le?


What the hell is this supposed to even mean? You want Bush absolved as somehow not having been responsible for taking those lives into a controversial war? Just tell us right now what things Republicans are never supposed to be responsible for having done.

Trump couldn't have won the primary if he hadn't attacked Jeb for his brother's decisions - and promised to avoid repeating them. And attacked Hillary for having supported them.

You guys never make sense.

Expat(ish) said...

Quick, under which president did most of the casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan fall?

After he did a victory lap?

-XC

Hari said...

What other NYT bestsellers are described as 'beautifully published'' books?

Saint Croix said...

What's cool about this is that Bush's self-interest is obvious. He wants to rehabilitate himself, through a kind of atonement. And he wants to do it in public.

We can't avoid naked self-interest, or sin!

But what you can do, as you seek to rehabilitate yourself, in public, is pay tribute to all the people who sacrificed themselves for our country.

It's very honest. His focus on rehab, on wounds, allows us to make the obvious connection to Bush's own trauma and guilt.

Kudos.

veni vidi vici said...

"What the hell is this supposed to even mean? You want Bush absolved as somehow not having been responsible for taking those lives into a controversial war? Just tell us right now what things Republicans are never supposed to be responsible for having done."

...and yet, nary a word from the Dems about Kennedy's role starting the Viet Nam war.

Keep it coming, love. This whole "keeping score tit for tat" thing is a game anyone can play.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

...and yet, nary a word from the Dems about Kennedy's role starting the Viet Nam war.

Keep it coming, love. This whole "keeping score tit for tat" thing is a game anyone can play.


Are we still in and/or trying to militarily "re-intervene" in the messes we made in Vietnam?

Get in the present tense, Caveman. Being President to the 1960s is not currently on the menu of options, no matter how much social resentment you have or how much anti-liberal retribution you fantasize about.

And no matter how much you wish you could absolve Nixon of:

1. Escalating the conflict
2. Preventing a 1968 peace deal from being concluded

Just another No-Responsibility Republican. It's the fruit by which you can be known, these days.

Michael K said...

I am sticking to my resolution, no matter how difficult.

Trumpit said...

When is Bush going to paint the portraits of the million victims who died because of his unjustified war to oust Saddam Hussein. I will spring for the first gallon of blood red paint to get that "mission accomplished.

"Didn't know about this book but I'm not gonna lie. I teared up a bit."

You are selfishly shedding tears for yourself. You are maudlin and pathetic.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"I am sticking to my resolution, no matter how difficult."

Your suffering is a small fraction of our torment w/o your comments.

You're so missed, but we understand that you need to stick to your promise. Cause Hippocratic and America and such.

So,


carry on.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

I am sticking to my resolution, no matter how difficult.

Having trouble with the regimen?

Buy this guy's pills!

Gahrie said...

Wait...now they're trying to blame Vietnam on Nixon?!?

Drago said...

TTR: "2. Preventing a 1968 peace deal from being concluded"

Pure conspiracy theory with no evidence.

Drago said...

Gahrie: "Wait...now they're trying to blame Vietnam on Nixon?!?"

Where ya been? Kerry did that in 2004 when referencing his own Vietnam experience. Kerry called Vietnam "Mr. Nixons war."

Once again, history always helpfully begins when a republican is elected President and even before the republican assumes office!

It's a very handy tool for assigning blame early on to get the republican used to it.

Drago said...

And yes, I liked the book.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

"Preventing a 1968 peace deal from being concluded"

Pure conspiracy theory with no evidence.


I'd be careful about dismissing the evidence provided by a guy as loyal to Nixon as H.R. Haldeman. Hey, it's all about loyalty! If you can't trust Haldeman, who could you trust?

Jack Wayne said...

Toothless is one of those people who is convinced that if he controls the past, he can control the future.

clint said...

The ability to splice partisan sniping and calls for bipartisan healing into a single sentence is truly remarkable.

The author is a veritable sentencemonger.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Gahrie: "Wait...now they're trying to blame Vietnam on Nixon?!?"

Where ya been? Kerry did that in 2004 when referencing his own Vietnam experience. Kerry called Vietnam "Mr. Nixons war."

Once again, history always helpfully begins when a republican is elected President and even before the republican assumes office!

It's a very handy tool for assigning blame early on to get the republican used to it.


Very unfair to refer to his Cambodian bombing raids as "escalation." I think when wars are expanded to other countries it should be recognized for what Nixon thought he could sell it as: detente. De-escalation. Right?

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Toothless is one of those people who is convinced that if he controls the past, he can control the future.

Which one of us is making excuses for and covering up for the past?

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Drago said...

TTR: "Very unfair to refer to his Cambodian bombing raids as "escalation." I think when wars are expanded to other countries it should be recognized for what Nixon thought he could sell it as: detente. De-escalation. Right?"

And just who do you suppose Nixon was bombing? Or do you consider Cambodia to be the North Vietnamese/VC/Soviet safe space where operations can be launched from in order to defeat the South Vietnamese?

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace
and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

AReasonableMan said...

Michael K said...
I am sticking to my resolution, no matter how difficult.


Can't see this ending well. In the words of the great sage, "Better out than in, I always say".

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Henry said...

Here's one unforced parenthetical from the article: (one of the factors that led to ISIS)

If nothing else, Adler's toadying to The Times readership makes clear one fact : history will not remember President Obama.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against
Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Inga said...

Michael K said...
"I am sticking to my resolution, no matter how difficult"

Oh Michael. What is your resolution this time?

Laslo Spatula said...

The Ruthless Umlaut says...

Do you hear that sound, you orange apes? That's the sound of your knuckles dragging on the ground! You think you're Movie Reference 1933 but you're not even Movie Reference 1942! Ignorant Fasnachts!

I'm using movie references because I know you are incapable of reading books. 1962 Movie Reference leading to 1926 Book reference! Middle East! Reference to Rock Formation! Yes, you, you Hookah Enema Vapor!

1920 France reference! Faisal! Parlez-vous Asshole, s'il vous plait? Big Word: Adjective! Big Word: Noun! CAPITAL LETTERS!

Auf wiedersehen, you Mohrenkopfs!

I am Laslo.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Michael The Magnificent said...

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress << NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

Lem said...

Regret is the wrong word.

Sebastian said...

I don't think Bush feels guilty, nor does he need to "atone," of course apart from his sense of being an ordinary sinner.

Which doesn't prevent him from feeling a great sense of loss, and a great bond with people who made sacrifices, and and great need to give some kind of meaning to it all.

Drago said...

Sebastian: "I don't think Bush feels guilty, nor does he need to "atone," of course apart from his sense of being an ordinary sinner.

Which doesn't prevent him from feeling a great sense of loss, and a great bond with people who made sacrifices, and and great need to give some kind of meaning to it all."

Agreed.

I am reminded of the first time I met and spoke with GW Bush during the early days of his first run for Governor. The humility he demonstrated even then as well as his clear affection, yes affection, for military members was noteworthy.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

And just who do you suppose Nixon was bombing? Or do you consider Cambodia to be the North Vietnamese/VC/Soviet safe space where operations can be launched from in order to defeat the South Vietnamese?

I consider that when wars are fought between two countries, expanding them to additional countries constitutes escalation.

Henry said...

It is telling that part of Adler's performance of praising Bush with loud damns, is a sideways sneer at Eisenhower.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"Oh Michael. What is your resolution this time?"

He can't take it anymore. He's tired of those libs. So he's gonna show them cause now they won't get to hear anymore about blowing up Assad's palaces and jabber about all the Ds who are going to be incarcerated by DJT and so on.

Oh, and no more alerts when it's time for the Doc to go to sleepy time.



If he follows through and leaves the blog, I'll just make a sock puppet w/ his name. I can cut and paste a few things over and over and over and over. No one will notice the difference.

Marc Puckett said...

Alter, people, not Adler. I was stricken to think that the author was Professor Adler at Volokh. :-)

gspencer said...

"to support healing in all of its forms, even from the president who most made that healing necessary"

An on-point Simpsons remark,

Wiggum: You know it's kind of ironic. These old people are being kept alive by the organs of the young people they run over.

Drago said...

TTR: "I consider that when wars are fought between two countries, expanding them to additional countries constitutes escalation"

Nixon did not expand the conflict to Cambodia. North Vietnam along with their Soviet masters did.

Why are you avoiding this obvious reality?

Inga said...

Good Person,

Ohhhh, that again.

Bad Lieutenant said...

If he follows through and leaves the blog, I'll just make a sock puppet w/ his name. I can cut and paste a few things over and over and over and over. No one will notice the difference.

4/18/17, 8:45 PM


Ann. is this what you mean by 'determined to ruin the blog?'

AReasonableMan said...

Bad Lieutenant said...
Ann. is this what you mean by 'determined to ruin the blog?'


Hard to see humor ruining a blog.

Whatever happened to that nice old man, Michael K?

Gahrie said...

Somehow, "Hey Hey Nixon..How many kids did you kill today?" just doesn't have the same ring to it....

SDaly said...

Yeah, It didn't sound like Jonathan Adler to take a gratuitous swipe at Bush (he made the healing necessary), but it certainly sounds like the actual author, Jonathan Alter.

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

Bad L,

I've said that I'm trying to ruin the blog. I say I'm dumb. Uninteresting. Troll. Liar.

I'll cop to any accusation (except small cock).

Plus have you notice how many line breaks I'm constantly tossing in?

Still I'm not banned.


Althouse is really letting you and me down.

Drago said...

3rdgrader: "Still I'm not banned"

Of course you are.

Just not "banned banned".

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

BTW Bad L,

I didn't peg you as the sort to tattle tale to the teacher cause little pee wee hurt your feelings.

Suck it up buttercup.






Bob Loblaw said...

If nothing else, Adler's toadying to The Times readership makes clear one fact : history will not remember President Obama.

Sure it will. Obama will be remembered as the first black US president, and as a genius who was sadly let down by incompetents in his administration, and by the American people.

Inga said...

Maybe everyone should just accept the fact that there will be some lefties who continue to read and comment at this blog. Get over it. We make the comments section hop. We're fun. Let's have a little appreciation here folks. That is all. Carry on.

Oh one more thing, consider this, if Michelle Obama can have a genuine affection for GW Bush, anything is possible. Envision yourselves hugging us lefties, like Michelle hugged Bush. Now isn't that nice?

harrogate said...

I'm sure the families of all the dead also aren't gonna lie, and teared up a little bit at W's art. The important thing is W and how he feels!

ForestGirl said...

This article wasn't written by Jonathan Adler, but by Jonathan Alter.

Jon Ericson said...

There is a fungus among us.
Bring out your microscopes, and electron microscopes, and you know what's beyond.
The truth will make you free. (but please hide!)

Jon Ericson said...

Funny lyrics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9mCA1he1zM

Guildofcannonballs said...

I am beginning to understand why I hate when jerky jerks jerk 'round rather than tell me something I do not know; they ain't now or never be knowing.

Guildofcannonballs said...

There is a certain admirosity for Bill Kristol had Bush lost: we might not ever have known. He would be funded by people that now have seen who he is, but isn't.

Hell I would feel good if that were me, given tides and history and thatnot.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Nixon did not expand the conflict to Cambodia. North Vietnam along with their Soviet masters did.

Why are you avoiding this obvious reality?


While you might say they were "the first ones" to expand it, and we just followed them there, that's not really how we'd look at it if it were the other way around. America has bases all over the Middle East, let alone the world. Do you think it matters a fig to an enemy whether we bomb them from the Persian Gulf, from Afghanistan, or from bases in a dozen countries there? No. They'll just retaliate against us from wherever we chose to go after them - if they can - and get the blame all the same as the ones who "expanded" the belligerence. Or maybe they wouldn't, and would confine hostilities to the theater of conflict. But that's a limitation of capability. They would still get the blame for expanding conflict though if they did retaliate against us from one of these many, extra-territorial bases we launched from, if they could.

Phil 3:14 said...

GW sure does bring out the best in us all.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Should we assume Ann will be fair and balanced enough to cover the latest in the O'Reilly scandal? And since some of us have a day job, I'd just like it to be known that he was the best sexually predatory newscaster money could buy. Oh, how the mighty have fallen! Talk about your vast left-wing conspiracies. What's a dominant right-wing male hoping to warp the media to do, these days? Not harass his female employees? Not go after his boss's son-in-law?

It just gets worse and worse every day.

Jay Elink said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay Elink said...

"Very unfair to refer to his Cambodian bombing raids as "escalation."
******************

Did the US invade Cambodia?

No, the NVA and Viet Cong did that.

Did the NVA use Laos as a route into Cambodia and South Vietnam, while fomenting a civil war to oust Prince Sihanouk, Cambodia's ruler?

Yes, the NVA did that.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Good old Tucker cut an ad saying 'Every few months you have to reevaluate your premise" or some shit like that same shit dere.

Oh so I ain't be gotten me no damn eidetic audio memory I ain't be mattering up in this joint herewise?

Oh I see how it is...

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...

"It just gets worse and worse every day."

Yup.

Poor cons, it seems like it was just days ago when they were so enthused by imagining that DJT had dominated and warped the minds of non-cons. So gleeful as they ostensibly tried to convince us that DJT was driving non-cons batty. They went on and on and on and on about how the non-cons were losing it, because DJT had outsmarted, deal-arted them. They talked and talked about the lost minds that they saw around every corner and hiding under every bush.

Now it's the combo of Mercury and Silica that's always (figuratively) staring back.

Bless their hearts.


Guildofcannonballs said...

Steynonline wishes you were here.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Any of you rich fucks wanna unfuck your selfs for my instaprescient hesitate, because no matter how poor I will probably reject you.

Guildofcannonballs said...

Also, on a pointedly non-public note, I am seeking a buddy/friend, one though Supra-ultro connected, to because of my dedication to us commenters, Bobby "boy" Boyd included here now, as are several of you others, to help me seek justice via retribution so it doesn't become any worse, this crisis.

You see, it seems a certain Bob Dylan called for the illegal use of drugs in one, if not more, of his songs. This encitemant SHANT stand, it shant I tell you.

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

Oh, you don't have to explain, Jay Elink! Republican Party of Irresponsibility always finds a way to blame someone else!

Always.

The explanation doesn't even have to make sense. (And usually doesn't). Just as long as it follows the GOP mantra: It's someone else's fault! They should put that on a bumper sticker.

You guys are slipperier than a raccoon dunked in dildo grease.

Now go ask if you can assault another FOX employee.

John Taylor said...

its understandable how these contemporary biographies can go to #1 like that... but it doesn't make them good. I'm currently reading a bio of U.S. Grant... and frankly, its damn good, and provides so much more knowledge than the fixation of contemporary partisan cheap-shot push and pull. And just to throw out there... here is Dwight Eisenhower's estimation of Grant, when he interrupted Nixon who was going on about Stonewall Jackson...

"I wouldn’t say that, Dick. In fact I think it’s not a very reasoned opinion. You forget that Grant captured three armies intact, moved and coordinated his forces in a way that baffles military logic yet succeeded and he concluded the war one year after being entrusted with that aim. I’d say that was one hell of a piece of soldiering extending over a period of four years, the same time we were in the last war.”

Quaestor said...

If nothing else, Adler's toadying to The Times readership makes clear one fact: history will not remember President Obama.

Quaestor begs to differ. Future historians will hail Obama as a marvel of his time. Who else could take a very brief and very junior senatorial career, distinguished by more abstentions and absences that actual votes on legislation and parlay it into history's longest golf vacation, and at taxpayers' expense?

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

There is a saying, Michael K:

Never argue with an idiot.
They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Bad Lieutenant said...

3rdGradePB_GoodPerson said...
BTW Bad L,

I didn't peg you as the sort to tattle tale to the teacher cause little pee wee hurt your feelings.

Suck it up buttercup.

4/18/17, 9:16 PM


Oh, don't get me wrong, as dreadful a poster as you are, I've seen worse. I just wonder what exactly her standards are, because I've seen much better commenters banned for less than you do. So I'm curious as to where the dividing line is, that's all. As you objectionable people like to say, carry on.

Temujin said...

This review has more disclaimers in it than an ad for a pharmaceutical. My God...people on the left cannot give even a light compliment to someone on the right without the posted disclaimers: 'even though this, that, and the other', I still like this small thing about him/her. 'I did not vote for him/her, but...'. 'They typically repulse me, but...'.

The left forgives beheadings and bombings of innocents by religious thugs easier than someone goes to church on Sunday to pray for you and feels good about it. Think about that.

That Adler likes what Bush has done seems to have found him surprised that George W. is a good and decent man who made bad decisions. And for those of you who don't remember how it felt on 9/11, I can't replicate if for you. Decisions made in the shadow of that cannot be clearly understood today. However, his bad decisions did get corrected. The following President made horrible decisions, smiled broadly about it, went to play golf, and now holy hell is breaking out from Korea to the Middle East. He's considered above reproach.

Big Mike said...

Well I certainly missed Bush for eight long years. He was a decent, underrated man who wanted what was best for the United States, in complete contrast to the petulant, overrated twit who succeeded him in office.

AReasonableMan said...

Big Mike said...
Well I certainly missed Bush for eight long years. He was a decent, underrated man who wanted what was best for the United States, in complete contrast to the petulant, overrated twit who succeeded him in office.


Fortunately the bulk of the populace does not see the world with these blinders on.

dreams said...

"I'm currently reading a bio of U.S. Grant... and frankly, its damn good, and provides so much more knowledge than the fixation of contemporary partisan cheap-shot push and pull."

I read that book and it is good. I bet not very many people know that U.S. Grant at the end of nineteenth century was considered our greatest leader, even higher than George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and the founding fathers.

Mark said...

Is there anyone who writes for the Times who isn't a self absorbed asshole?

It's clear from this comment thread that the Times isn't the only place with them.

This started off with a good post, with a nasty quote showing reviewer bias to play off of, and after this first comment any further constructive discussion was immediately destroyed by those aforementioned assholes who derailed the topic to reveal again in their assholery, which has become fairly common.

dreams said...

"American Ulysses

A life of Ulysses S. Grant"

Ronald C. White, Author

dreams said...

I'm a big admirer of U.S. Grant, he was an extremely skilled horseman too. Though he wasn't much when it came to making a living at farming.

AReasonableMan said...

Mark said...
a nasty quote showing reviewer bias


For the reality based community the fact that Bush took us into a war of choice is not an example of 'reviewer bias'.

dreams said...

Time will tell how George W Bush is ultimately judged. Obama make American less safe for the white population with his race baiting behavior and he also made the world less safe with his failure to lead and lack of courage in upholding his red line.

John Lynch said...

George W. Bush was the same man as President. People suddenly discovering W. weren't paying attention.

John Lynch said...

To nasty liberal commenters: how W. was treated led to Trump. Thank you so much for your contribution to American democracy.

AReasonableMan said...

John Lynch said...
To nasty liberal commenters: how W. was treated led to Trump.


Trump repudiated everything Bush Jr did as president. Trump was brutal in his criticism, more so than most liberals. This, in large part, is why he is now president and the nine dwarves are all sitting on the sidelines, together with Romney.

Steve M. Galbraith said...

Correction: the review is by the liberal journalist Jonathan Alter not the law professor/commentator (Volokh) Jonathan Adler.

Marc Puckett said...

That has been pointed out, SMG, a few times upthread. The thread stopped being about the Alter review, in any specific way, long ago.

Henry said...

@John Taylor -- Grant's own autobiography is very good.

Drago said...

ARM: "Trump repudiated everything Bush Jr did as president. Trump was brutal in his criticism, more so than most liberals."

True. Trump long ago, as a democrat and New Yorker, completely internalized how the left operates and used it against them.

Bush was and is the polar opposite.

And yet both, along with every other republican, are LITERALLY Hitler.

And the left is "surprised" as to why the republican base became so tired of it they decided to fight fire with fire.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Further evidence that liberals have a much higher rate of assholishness than conservatives.

readering said...

I'm white. I felt a lot safer in 2015 than 1985.

Steve said...

Adler is such an inconsequential cock.

"the president who most made that healing necessary" as if President Gore (knock wood) wouldn't have ordered men into battle following 9/11. And certainly Obama ordered many men into battle.

Bush dropped out of sight after his Presidency and only reentered public life to bring attention and money to the suffering of veterans. Adler and many, many others decided it was an opportunity to deliver one more kick.

Larvell said...

I initially misread the author as being Jonathan Adler, and couldn't imagine him snarkily describing Bush as "the president who most made that healing necessary." But then I saw that it was Jonathan Alter, and all became clear.

Michael K said...

Man, I am glad I stayed out of that cat fight.

Bush is a talented painter but cannot be discussed in that light by the angry left.