I viewed this video this morning. It's linked on Twitter by @MornCommute. Actually, I thought I viewed it at Ace of Spades, but I can't seem to find it over there now. It touched me. Forgiveness is a fascinating topic for me, and it doesn't surprise me at all that George W. Bush is quick to forgive.
Yes, I miss him. Very much.
42 comments:
Post by the Darcinator - you go!
Welcome Darcy everybody.
It is an interesting story about character. The thing at the end is especially good. His perception about what she was feeling, the root of her own strong emotions. The unloyal person's actions threatened her, Bush sensed that and addressed it and comforted her before she realized herself that was the key to her anger.
But, no, I do not miss him.
We'd be better off if presidents tended to be just vague memories that we neither love nor hate.
And welcome Darcy who is great as is Dana Perino though Perino is a bit too nice to her opponents as was W, her boss.
We needed a Wolverine.
Welcome, Darcy.
Man, this place is getting crowded.
PS Yes, we all miss him. He wasn't always right, but he always had class.
Welcome, Darcy, I'm glad you've joined us :)
Welcome, Darcy.
I watched the video earlier today, before going to church. The power of forgiveness is an amazing thing.
I didn't agree with some things GWB did as president, but I never doubted that he did anything just for political expediency. He is a decent man, a good man, and a humble man. The story Dana Perino told about him confirms that in spades.
I wish Perino would have also explained how she gets her dog to sit still.
My spouse sent this link to me earlier this week. I watched it the same day I watched the replay of him on Leno. I do miss him a little, only because I trusted that he really just wanted to do what was right.
Thanks, everyone. :)
I couldn't bear him when he was in office. The Iraq war was horribly executed.
But now I have an affection for him. He's a good guy.
From Wikipedia...
Critics of McClellan's book included former White House staffers such as Karl Rove, Dan Bartlett, Ari Fleischer and Mary Matalin. Fleischer and Matalin have claimed that McClellan had not shared similar doubts during his tenure in the White House, and that if he had held such doubts then he ought not to have replaced Fleischer as Press Secretary. McClellan has responded by stating that he, like many other Americans, was inclined to give the administration the "benefit of the doubt" on the necessity of the Iraq War, and did not fully appreciate the circumstances until after leaving the "White House bubble".
I put the odds at zero chance that an Obama insider will come forward and write about the real Obama White House... and if anybody does it will very likely be some glowing JFKesk BS.
For being called a shoot from the hip cowboy, he sure was thoughtful and awful easy on the Indians.
The difficulty of the Iraq war was the same as in Vietnam, the enemy used the press as useful idiots to make any success by the Americans pale in comparison to the tiniest setbacks and the magnification of the normal costs and ugliness of war. Remember, every night the deaths in Iraq were featured on TV newscasts. No nation could ever expect to win a war under those conditions, yet we did. That was a miracle of leadership. We have a an Achilles heal and everybody knows it, and that makes the world a much more dangerous place. Thank you lefties.
Great post Darcy, especially for a virgin.
Welcome the lovely Darcy.
Compared to the o, I miss carter.
Darcy,
Glad you're posting here. As for Bush II, he may not have been our best President - but he's one of the best human beings ever to be President.
Just because Barack Obama is one of the worst, most ineffectual presidents we've ever had doesn't mean that W. Bush was any better. He oversaw a massive increase in the federal government's power and set in motion the most massive surveillance operation the US has ever seen which has been happily used and abused by the Obama administration and will only get worse and more oppressive now that there's a precedent for it and the American public is too moronic at this point to care.
I don't think it's possible to miss a politician. Almost nothing is more satisfying that seeing a politician leave public office.
Välkommen hem, Darcy.
I like Bush.
Please post some country music videos.
I don't think Bush-43 forgave Saddam for trying to kill his daddy. There are limits after all.
Welcome Ms. Darcy.
I don't think Bush-43 forgave Saddam for trying to kill his daddy. There are limits after all.
If you buy that, I'd like to sell you the notion that ObamaCare is due to Barack Obama's singular rage about his mother's death from ovarian cancer. The misdiagnosis, the lack of coverage..the whole story.
I miss Eisenhower. Don't miss any Bushes,past,present or future.
I'm pretty sure I'd like Bush 43 based on his demeanor and what he thought he was doing.
However, in the start up and execution of the Iraq War his advisors damn near made him a criminal...not for the war itself, which needed finishing, but for the corruption and greed in the huge privatized part of it...something Bush, because of his counsels, cannot avoid.
Bush administered the DOD of Obama's dreams...one that could not defend Boston, if invaded, on 24 hours notice by its own resources. Once that point is achieved, it is all politics, period.
Bush was mislead by trusted counsel, Obama is manipulated by his....IMO he has never had an original thought ever. Effect is the same.
Aridog said...
in the start up and execution of the Iraq War his advisors damn near made him a criminal...not for the war itself, which needed finishing, but for the corruption and greed in the huge privatized part of it...something Bush, because of his counsels, cannot avoid.
Bush and his administration misbelieved Iraqis would recognize or care that we would return their government to them. It was a massive error, but it wasn't corruption or greed.
Marshall said ...
... but it wasn't corruption or greed.
I think you need to discuss this with some people who have first hand on the job knowledge of the privatization involved at that time. Let alone now. My experience was and is first hand. I'm not going to say more because I do not need gray suits on my door step. Seriously.
Just saw this by Darcy. Good job.
Aridog said... My experience was and is first hand.
I don't doubt that there was corruption and greed, only that they caused our failure. By the time corruption and greed were a factor we'd already been proven wrong.
Didn't vote for the guy. (Didn't vote for the other guy.) Disagreed with him on almost everything, although I came around to thinking the Iraq war was brilliant strategery about the time everyone else started hating it. But hated NCLB, part D, Patriot Act, etc., and we're seeing all that stuff bite us int he ass with Common Core, Obamacare, the spying, and on and on.
But I'm always struck by how good and intelligent a man he seems to be contrasted with the demonic dunce portrayal of him in the media.
Thanks for posting, Darce. I meant to listen to this and forgot.
Marshall ... its good you acknowledge it, but your time line is off. It began to influence the war in the week prior to the first day. Think commerical comodities, including fuel. It was privatized, no bid, to and through ole buddies, with myriad layers of skim, before the first day of shooting. It had nothing to do with the rightness or wrongne$$ of the effort. It wa$ all about the $$$$$$.
Initially when you must issue a commercial contract to support military actions, you do it based upon two things: the capability to provide and the capability to deliver same immediately. Fair enough. That justifies maybe a one year expedited no-bid yet best value contract.
However...the contracts were for 5 years+. Tell me why? We expected to be unable to negotiate best value agreements in the center of the oil producing world? For half a decade?
Please. I like Bush 43, but he had some real assholes advising him.
However...the contracts were for 5 years+. Tell me why?
I don't think this is the right question. There were certainly people profiting, but had Bush's advisors been accurate we would have won with corruption and people satisfying their greed instead of losing. I don't see how the outome hinged on paying people too much for a long-term contract when that outcome was decided a few months after the war (when the majority of Iraqi leaders decided they would oppose us).
Aridog said...
I think you need to discuss this with some people who have first hand on the job knowledge of the privatization involved at that time
The stereotype of the war profiteer, as with most stereotypes, has a basis in reality. There was monumental corruption with the civil projects in Afghanistan. Remarkably little was achieved from a remarkably large investment. Most of that money disappeared into US pockets. Even the Afghanis were impressed with the level of corruption involved, having been promised so much and seen so little delivered.
Congratulations Darcy!
Just don't keep telling everyone that you like bush.
You are gonna break a lot of hearts.
Just sayn'
Marshal and ARM ... I can't say any more, and I've already said way too much in past comments here and elsewhere. Some have been noticed.
I can't touch Afghanistan becasue I would hurt people I like and admire. They followed orders.
I'll end by saying I voted for Bush 43 and was profoundly disappointed by what I experienced in his administration...at the hands of his advisors and appointees.
And, me too....Congratulations Darcy. You come highly recommended by persons I respect very much.
PS: Marshal ... I am confused by how you appear to define "winning?" Winning what?
The bit about 5 years versus the few months you cite is the point. Who determined 5 years was needed? Why?
Shit...I gotta shut the flip up.
Anyone who doesn't think the strategy (blessed by Bush) for winning Ohio in 2004 wasn't totally political, is dreaming.
Why does this "interview" take place in the back seat of an SUV (or whatever)?
Also, why do none of them bother considering whether McClellan felt "betrayed" by W's performance.
...I would hurt people I like and admire. They followed orders.
Whoa whoa whoa… Can anyone name another historical event where this "rationalization" was used?
Rhythm and Balls said...
Can anyone name another historical event where this "rationalization" was used?
Cute, but not in context. I was talking about commercial transactions, not genocide or military tactics per se.
It is precisely this kind of misinterpretation that informs me to say less these days. For the record, it was no different under Clinton either. Eisenhower was right....and he wasn't referring to Nazis or genocide either.
ARM said ...
There was monumental corruption with the civil projects in Afghanistan ... Most of that money disappeared into US pockets. Even the Afghanis were impressed ...
Don't kid yourself that Afghanis didn't benefit on personal levels, not necessarily on community levels. There is a reason for the adage that you can't "buy" an Afghani, but you CAN rent him."
Many many years ago when I was just an NCO I was involved in inspecting contracted work OCONUS. You had to do it or there was a fair chance whatever you contracted to be built might just fall over thanks to "shorting" by the contracted local national builder. More than one buildling did in fact topple to the ground.
The blunt truth is that when corruption appears in one organization, the US for example, it quickly appears in our partners. It is contagious.
To be fair, many times the orignal US deals were just foolish, or unrealistic...which made them potential pots for corruption. Everyone thinks we're rich and robbing us is ethical therefore.
Aridog said...
PS: Marshal ... I am confused by how you appear to define "winning?" Winning what?
The bit about 5 years versus the few months you cite is the point. Who determined 5 years was needed? Why?
A) Winning the peace. Winning the support of influential Iraqis or the masses behind them so we could establish a stable and functional government and leave the country.
B) The 5 year contract exceeding the immediate need establishes that graft was likely involved. It's not evidence that graft caused our difficulties in Iraq. The graft involved would be extending the one year emergency period to the 5 year term, or in the timeline at roughly the end of year one. But by that time we had already lost the opportunity to win support to our side.
Plus graft, while condemnable, does not on its own create a negative immediate response from the Iraqis. It might disillusion some, but only after a long exposure. This might have effected things years later (although given Iraqi culture I'm skeptical) but it could not have driven the failure which started immediately after the military victory.
The key element causing our failure to establish a safe and stable country was misbelieving that the majority would welcome us as "liberators" and help suppress insurgents. In fact that did not happen, except on a limited scale much later, but by believing the "liberator" theory we failed to develop adequate plans to win that support.
Marshall said ...
... it could not have driven the failure which started immediately after the military victory.
No, it just paid for all of the screw ups, as intended.
Post a Comment