Reasonably Ascertainable Reality

Thoughts and musings on current events and other random occurrences.

Name:
Location: South Jersey, United States

Friday, June 10, 2005

A must read

This is beyond interesting (via Crooks and Liars).

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist
Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being
seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My
father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of
Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invadeĀ·.if I had that
much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that
I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." Herskowitz
said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the
shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the
opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said,
came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in
the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."

This is a must read and I'll be very interested in how the bloggers respond. Will it hold up to scrutiny? There are many more interesting tid-bits in this article...explore!

7 Comments:

Blogger scott said...

Wow, you guys are all over this. Real Woodward and Bernsteins if you ask me. Just one problem; IT WAS WRITTEN EIGHT MONTHS AGO!

Let's see, the article was also funded by the Nation and the writer of the article has earned his liberal stripes by writing for the who's who of leftist rags. It also appears on Common Dream, which makes the NY Times look like FOX news.

Also, it was published by the Guerilla News Network, an extreme lefty site.

So let's sum up, the article was written more than half a year ago and nothing about it has been heard since. Even the old lib reliable mouthpiece the Times didn't take up the story.

My mama taught me long ago, just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's true.

8:34 PM  
Blogger Katinula said...

Hmmmm...
1. just because it was written 8 months ago doesn't make it untrue.
2. just becuase it was funded by left-wingers doesn't make it untrue.
3. you didn't address one issue from the article that you thought wasn't true.
4. thats why i asked 'will it hold up to scrutiny'.

I found it interesting that the author had close ties to the Bush family and had an interesting take on the whole thing.

Let me know when you have some actual claims of falsehoods because I'd be interested in hearing them.

9:45 AM  
Blogger scott said...

Where should I begin? How about the entire article is unsourced. It is the words of one man who is reputed to have had access to Bush.

Second, if any of this were true, do you believe that it wouldn't have been splashed across the NY Times for weeks?

Just as the post above this--quoted from a Drudge hearsay piece--shows it is most likely not true.

Until a story has been researched and vetted, I will post only using words like "alleged" or "the NY Post is saying", etc.

I generally don't post something based on one source and mass amounts of hyperbole.

Look at the sources. You posting that is the equivalent of me posting something from some far-right site with no backup info.

9:21 PM  
Blogger Katinula said...

I could just as easily say that if it wasn't true wouldn't the right wing blogosphere be tearing it apart. You still haven't stated one thing you think is untrue in the article. You post things written by Ann Coulter who calls Bill Clinton a rapist. Not an alleged rapist, or accused rapist, but a rapist.
Do you dispute that the author has close ties to the Bush family? That he was writing a book about W? That he did write a book about Prescott? Do you dispute the things he claims? Or do you just dispute the source of the claims???
I don't hear the author (of the book) coming out to deny the statements.
I'm sorry I'm just coming across this now. I found it interesting..wondering how people would respond...and was especially curious to see if it was debunked.
Once again, has it been?
What is it that you are disputing? Do you claim the entire thing is fiction?
Oh and sorry I didn't live up to your 'alleged' journalistic integrity. I guess I was just hoping to promote some dialogue.

11:25 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

I don't think it would be possible to proove it untrue. There was only two people present supposedly, Bush and Herskowitz.

There does seem to be some motivation for Herskowitz to lie, or at least spin comments in the worst possible way.

It is also a little too 'pat' with the stereotype of George W. Bush, I tend to look at things like that with some distrust.

Additionally, it doesn't seem to fit terribly well with known historical events. Before 9/11 Bush had certainly not appeared to be adventerous in Foreign policy and had decried nation building. It seems pretty clear that he dramatically changed his mind on his role, and the role of America in response to 9/11.

Also remember, that official U.S. policy, dating from the Clinton years was regime change in Iraq. A cavalier attitude (with quite possibly some macho posturing) doesn't really reveal too much about Presidential plans.

11:35 PM  
Blogger scott said...

Do I dispute the validity of the author? Yes I do. He may have had access to Bush, as did a great many people. I think the guy is doing whatever he can to keep his name in the paper and sell articles or books.

That's why you never see me link to anything by Dick Morris. He was Clinton's right hand man and was rejected by Clinton after the Lewinsky chaos ended. For that reason and that reason alone, I have to question his motives.

There's no way to prove whether anything this guy says is true or not. I could throw some wild accusation out there about you and have it written in some low budget website, it doesn't make it true.

All I'm saying is that you have to trace stories back and see where they came from. If any of this were true it would have destroyed Bush.The fact that it was written at election time indicates to me nothing but dirty politics.

2:48 PM  
Blogger Katinula said...

Of course there is a way to prove it. Bush could deny it. It could be that simple and at least the story could be doubted then. I can't say that I don't have any doubts about it now. But I do find it interesting that no one has denied anything in it.
I'll also be curious come next election cycle on whether you hold true to your statement that b/c it was released right before the election, you question the motives. I wonder if you would be so circumspect if that happened to anyone on the left.

8:51 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


Find an Attorney