History speaks to the greatness of Ronald Reagan, so it lies. So I suppose it depends on whose version you are reading.

Optimisim born of outright ignorance is something quite different. When someone is portrayed as an optimistic person he or she is usually seen in an admirable lite. When someone lives in a reality of their own making, refusing to heed or even seek out the knowledge of others with more experience, when tha person then is handed the reins of power that person quickly becomes a danger to everyone else around them. I think we are seeing, on a daily basis just how far Bush’s optimisim is taking us all.

#111857 by thomas billis

Thomas,

I’m flabbergasted!!! Did Laura Bush actually write such a book? It’s nearly impossible to believe they would allow it to be published? (and available to ‘we the people”).

Now, I did read that she’s already had the divorce papers written up, but not to be effective of course, until after he leaves office. And, I’ve also read that she has demanded large ‘stipends’ for making public “appearances’ with him.

Still, this pretty much does knock my socks off, that she’s actually written such a book.

I mean, I DO believe this stuff…like him trying to walk on water in the pool, or change water into wine. BUT, these are actually not unusual things at all for those who are severely mentally ill, and remain untreated.

So, her book, (if it claims these things) would be quite an indictment of the entire Congress and a society that has refused to remove him from office.

The title is misleading though. Just being a ‘moron’ can be a figure of speech, that could also be ‘relatively harmless’. In other words, we’ve ALWAYS known george was a ‘moron’ from the beginning. Being a ‘moron’ though, and being a dangerous psychopath are not the same.

So, I guess I’m trying to decide if this book is worth me buying and reading, (since I don’t think Laura is particularly bright either). Does she get into any of the really dangerous mentality, or does she just describe the kind of stuff that lots of drunks would attempt to accomplish? (like walking on water, or turning it into wine)

“Dead Certain,”...... He was sure, Draper writes, that “history would acquit him.”

Sounds rather like Qin Shi Huang, the first Chinese Neocon emperor, uhh…... ruling under the name the First Emperor ...he was known for… unifying China (the one-party state!)..... For all the tyranny of his autocratic rule, Qin Shi Huang is still regarded by many today as a pivotal figure in Chinese history…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang

“...The Qin Dynasty left a legacy of a centralized and bureaucratic state….. The Qin Empire relied on the philosophy of legalism (with skillful advisors .....The length of the wheel axle was also unified….. To silence criticism of imperial rule, the emperor banished or put to death many dissenting Confucian scholars and confiscated and burned their books…. To prevent future uprisings, Qin Shi Huangdi ordered the confiscation of weapons and stored them in the capital…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Dynasty

Bush would much rather be right than happy, ultimately he’s neither and it shows.

This small man will be an ideliable metaphor of inept leadership and at the same time a template role model of how you can deceive the Country in broad daylight.
The Media monster backed his bad plate and that made it all possible.