My pleasure!
Posted on 04/22/2013 6:32:25 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
George W. Bush: ‘No need to defend myself’ By Jonathan Easley - 04/22/13 07:51 AM ET
Former President George W. Bush said he feels “no need to defend himself” over the high-profile decisions that marked his two terms in office, saying he will leave those judgments to history.
“There's no need to defend myself,” Bush said in an interview with USA Today. “I did what I did and ultimately history will judge.”
Bush, along with President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Jimmy Carter, will be on hand to open the George W. Bush Presidential Center in Dallas on Thursday.
Bush described the center as “a place to lay out the facts” behind his major policy decisions, including the decision to go to invade Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, not as a place that will explain or defend the actual policies.
Visitors to the library will be able to assess “the decisions that I had to make and the recommendations I received” at a “decision points theater,” according to Bush. In addition to the Iraq war and troop surge, the theater will focus on his handling of the 2008 financial collapse and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
In an interview conducted before last Monday’s Boston Marathon bombings, Bush said terrorism should still be a primary concern for the federal government.
“It's apparent that time is quickly dimming our memories,” Bush said of 9/11. “Evil exists still in the form of people who murder innocent people to advance a point of view.”
“The lessons of 9/11 are as profound today as they were then,” he added.
Bush has taken up painting in his private time – a fact that became known after a hacker exposed some of his private emails. The former president said it helps to keep him “mellow,” and that he’s content in his new life outside of public view.
“I'm happy to be out of the limelight. I truly am,” he said. “My life is obviously much simpler than it was in the past, but in many ways the simplicity creates contentment.”
“Some people get confused about my desire not to have the klieg lights shining on me, but eight years is plenty to be in the lights,” he said.
In an interview last week, the former president also expressed hopes that his brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) would run for president.
Asked if the nation was “ready for another Bush” in the Oval Office, he responded “That’s for Je to figure out.”
“I would hope that people would judge, if Jeb were to run, on his merits and his track record,” said Bush, adding “I hope he will run.”
His brother Jeb Bush has said he would weigh a 2016 GOP presidential bid and is seen as a prime contender for the nomination.
My pleasure!
You are really a hoot dude....really. A bitter negative one man crusade, that, well, only one man cares about. Laughter is the best medicine. bitterness is the most fatal poison.
Ain’t you just extra special?
Now let’s see where you are on the FR donor’s list as regards
payment for the advertising you do here. Surely you keep track of that.
i do think history will be kinder to him...
hehehe....one of us is obsessed.........
With self-promotion and LOOK AT MEEE!
Yeah, that would be you creampuff.
Let’s set specific people aside, including myself, and merely examine your mind set. Again, purely philosophical conversation, devoid of any specific people here:
So tell me, where do you get the idea the self promotion is bad?
Who ever became well known in the history of the world without first being unknown?
Who have we ever heard of, in any walk of life, - business, media, acting - who did not self promote at some point?
If someone isn’t willing to promote themselves, why would they expect anyone else to ever do it?
And why is paid advertising okay and earned adversiting (self promotion) somehow evil?
Where did you get the idea that having a bunch of money or a famous name to start with is somehow inherently superior?
By your own standards, Chelsea Clinton and Junior Russert are legit, because they entered the arena famous, but no one else is?
Why is it that you loathe those who want to build up themselves, while taking pride in your attempts to tear them down?
Where is this illness coming from?
I’m serious, have you seen a professional about this? I think they are doing amazing things in medicine today.
Reminds me of how HL Mencken described puritanism:
“Puritanism - the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.”
I get that idea when you perform that promotion on a site that I have supported financially for a decade and more.
One that I have not seen you support.
That's where I get the objection to your self-promotion here.
All the rest of your post is moot considering the above, my first and most relevant point.
I can either type it more slowly for you, or try to scare up some crayons and puppets.
Thanks LLS. Take care...
I understand your point, but seriously, it is flawed. You somehow think that someone perhaps, maybe, slightly, derving a little commercial benefit from a site you support is cheating you. It is not. There is no way to totally separate commercial benefit from a large number of people and media, and moreoever, there is no way to police it, and yet, you try. You need to grow up and realize the world runs on some dynamics that you have managed not to take notice of. But don’t worry about it, it runs just fine without your help.
Jim Rob, as is his right, derives his benefit by way of fund raisers. Some other sites have commercial sponsors, and some have Google ads random, and some others have private benefactors, and some have a mix. All are valid, all are the purview of the site owner, but all point to the fact that whenever media and people mix, there is commercial activity - covert and overt - and there is nothing humblegunner can do to prevent that.
Now, frankly, it requires very little intellect to figure out when a posting has some sort of ulterior motive. So what? Who is to say what is “proper” motive and what is “ulterior” in the first place? You? Methinks not. Having said that, we are all free to move right past any posting we think is shameful. You are really adding no value by what you do. It’s obvious, and not relevant to anything. Again, you think it’s cheating you, but that just proves further that you are guilty of falling under Mencken’s definition.
Yes, people might derive some financial benefit from posting on FR. So what? If that were not the case, what that would mean is FR is not effective nor large. You are resentful of what defines a successful site, and you are also resentful of those who would chase success as well. You may get your shorts in a wad over who has been registered for how long or who gives how much, but only your shorts are in that wad.
This is not your little fifedom.....and it;s obvious to all hear that this irks the ever living _____ out of you.
Blah, blah...
And you’re a pimp.
Do you like apples?
OH NO OH NO OH NO. And HG DONATED, and someone else BENEFITTED??????????? OH NO!!!!
What are you going to do to stop THAT?
Not to engage in politics itself is a political decision, and his humility is actually disguised arrogance. By not defending his policies he is leaving the field to his opponents.
I'd agree with a lot of that. When Bush came along a lot of people didn't want someone so tirelessly self-promoting and ambitious as Clinton. They wanted somebody who didn't really want to wield power, who didn't really want the job.
But when you elect somebody like that it may be hard to rouse him to do what's necessary. If the president is so weary of defending himself, so inclined to go with the flow, he won't do a very good job.
Of course, you don't want someone who lives only to exercise power, somebody who wants power for power's sake, somebody who doesn't know how to subordinate personal ambition to more important goals, but you also want somebody who wants the job, somebody who is firmly committed to getting something done.
This is justifiable only if he believes that the policy decisions he took are about George Bush the man, and unimportant to the future of the nation. If he believes that we are in the wrong path, then he is doing immense damage to our nation by remaining silent.
Ex-presidents generally keep quiet about their successors. They recognize how hard the job is and don't want to interject themselves into partisan debate. So it was with Bush's father and with Reagan. I don't have a problem with that. A former president who throws himself into the partisan debate, as Carter or perhaps Truman did, looks petty.
There are enough other figures on the scene to make the same points, and if Bush did start campaigning, he'd probably "do immense damage" to the country by creating more support for Obama. He's that unpopular. Making current political debate about Bush is what Obama wants.
I'm not interested in stopping anything, Zippy.
At the moment I'm just pointing out what a non-contributing pimpy loser-bag you are.
Worse than that, now he will campaign among the crony capitalists that put him in power to support his brother - than his nephew, than his daughter, ad infinitum...
TS
U right....in all likelihood...
No, I had never heard of Roberts when he was nominated; but others had warned about Sandra Day O’Connor from her liberal record in the AZ State Senate.
The 1922 recession was over when Coolidge became president in August 1923. Coolidge may have privately voted for Al Smith over Hoover. He once said that Hoover had given him unsolicited information ad infinitum, “all of it bad.”
George P. Bush may run unopposed for the Texas Land Commissioner nomination.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.