Decision points

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Why have you not read it yet?

Because there are oodles and oodles of other fascinating things to read, of course.

On a philosophical note, one of my sad realizations is that in the remainder of my life, I will only read a finite number of books. And every book I read reduces that number by one.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by KenJackson

On a philosophical note, one of my sad realizations is that in the remainder of my life, I will only read a finite number of books. And every book I read reduces that number by one.

Not so. Every new book you read increases the number of books you'e read by one. No-one can say how many more books you will read before you die.

It's not the reading of books that reduces the number of books you have time left to read, it's the passing of days.

I seem to be feeling oddly philosophical today.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by KenJackson

Because there are oodles and oodles of other fascinating things to read, of course.

On a philosophical note, one of my sad realizations is that in the remainder of my life, I will only read a finite number of books. And every book I read reduces that number by one.

I doubt you'll notice when that number reaches zero. Could be any day.

[bert501]

Originally Posted by THE TERMINATOR

Did you like Decision points by George bush. I haven't read it and was wondering how it was.

I've been reading this since Christmas-it was one of the first books I added to my new Sony.

It is very slow going, as has been mentioned the sentence structure and repetitiveness make for a slow read. Also, I'm taking the time to Google and look up things as I read to refresh my memory of people & events.

He seems very guarded and I get the feeling he had someone looking over his shoulder as he wrote (the person looking over my shoulder just said "duh, ya think?!")

Anyhoo, he does open up a lot more in the parts that are about his family. I got more of a connection with him as a person and a family man (husband, father, son) but the "Presidential parts" are obviously heavily edited so a bit of a disappointment there.

I would recommend this book but don't expect a tell-all or barn burner of a read, no surprises just a little glimpse of the world of Bush in his own words.

Hope this helps!

[boxcorner]

Bush's Swiss visit off after complaints on torture
(Reuters - Sat 5 Feb 2011)

"Bush, in his Decision Points memoirs on his 2001-2009 presidency, strongly defends the use of waterboarding as key to preventing a repeat of the September 11 attacks on the United States."

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Bush's Swiss visit off after complaints on torture

Can you at least see the extreme irony in this quote from the same article?

"Whatever Bush or his hosts say, we have no doubt he canceled his trip to avoid our case. The message from civil society is clear - If you're a torturer, be careful in your travel plans. It's a slow process for accountability, but we keep going," the Paris-based FIDH and New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights said in a joint statement on Saturday.

Let me help, in case it's not as blindingly obvious. Bush took non-lethal, non-injurious action to get information about attacks that would kill masses of innocent people. Apparently he had success. He probably saved lots of innocent lives--maybe even that of someone you love.

I say "non-injurious" because, after all, waterboarding does no bodily damage--it just plays on fears of the mind. I don't know if it should be considered torture* or not. I don't like it. It certainly should not be used in any routine manner. But the very few sons of satan that it was used against would love to see you, your family and all your friends die painfully. Bush took action to prevent that. It's remains a surprise that so many of those who hate him for it won't say an ill word against those who threaten to murder us all.

So I find it ironic that the Center for Constitutional Rights should threaten to convict President Bush for taking aggressive action to preserve our Constitutional right to life. And most ironic of all is the reference to the "slow process for accountability." That's exactly describes Bush's actions.

* If you want to read about real torture, read Jeremiah Denton's When Hell was in Session.

[RolandD]

Originally Posted by KenJackson

Let me help, in case it's not as blindingly obvious. Bush took non-lethal, non-injurious action to get information about attacks that would kill masses of innocent people. Apparently he had success. He probably saved lots of innocent lives--maybe even that of someone you love.

That's a bit like standing on the corner, clapping you hands to keep the elephants away, it'dn't?

Originally Posted by KenJackson

I say "non-injurious" because, after all, waterboarding does no bodily damage--it just plays on fears of the mind. I don't know if it should be considered torture* or not. I don't like it. It certainly should not be used in any routine manner. But the very few sons of satan that it was used against would love to see you, your family and all your friends die painfully. Bush took action to prevent that. It's remains a surprise that so many of those who hate him for it won't say an ill word against those who threaten to murder us all.

Once you begin justifying the violation of ANYONE's rights, it becomes much easier to justify violating everyone's rights. Just look at the Patriot Act.

Our country is better than this.

[Nyssa]

There is a place for discussions like this, and this place isn't it.

I do not have the direct link to the religious & political discussion area (as I do not subscribe to it), but that is specifically where this type of discussion is supposed to take place. It is called Hardened Debaters .

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by boxcorner

Bush's Swiss visit off after complaints on torture
(Reuters - Sat 5 Feb 2011)

"Bush, in his Decision Points memoirs on his 2001-2009 presidency, strongly defends the use of waterboarding as key to preventing a repeat of the September 11 attacks on the United States."

Discussion of this should probably take place in the Politics and Religion forum.

[RolandD]

mea culpa

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

There is a place for discussions like this, and this place isn't it.

I do not have the direct link to the religious & political discussion area (as I do not subscribe to it), but that is specifically where this type of discussion is supposed to take place. It is called Hardened Debaters .

Well said. Link to the P&R section
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=229

Instruction how to join it:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=103942

Moderator Notice
Thread closed.