# Decision Points



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2010)

An interesting review of President George W Bush's book Decision Points, and the dangers of large bureaucratic organizations:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/decision-points-insight-into-mismanagement/?singlepage=true



> *Decision Points: Insight into Mismanagement*
> Bush's memoir shows the former chief executive to be an admirable man driven by conviction, but doomed by miscommunication in the White House.
> November 22, 2010 - by Ryan Mauro
> Share |
> ...


----------



## DBA (24 Nov 2010)

I bought the Deluxe eBook Edition for $9.99 from Amazon.ca and read most of it on my desktop PC only skipping a few chapters on topics I was less interested in. It was well worth reading and gave some good insight into the man himself and the US political system. The most perceptive thought (I think anyway) is the following statement:

"Perceptions are shaped by the clarity of hindsight. In the moment of the decision, you don't have that advantage." 

It's easy to see in hindsight which decisions or actions were too late or too early but not so easy to do so in the moment. So a criticism of Bush for something poorly timed rings hollow without at least some analysis of the time period when the decision was made.


----------



## jhk87 (29 Nov 2010)

You are both assuming, of course, that this isn't a piece of self-justification composed by a ghostwriter with the current political climate in mind, right?


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Nov 2010)

What is the current political climate ? You might forget that the left savaged Bush relentlessly for 8 years and now with the left running Washington the climate is different ?


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2010)

If President George W Bush "wrote the book with the current political climate in mind", then I would have to ask where his powers of precognition were during his administration? 

How else could he have timed writing a book, had it edited and published to arrive so perfectly to coincide with the arrival of 63 conservative congressmen and the capture of multiple State legislatures by the TEA party movement ?

One thing I have noted is President Bush, despite multiple opportunities (including a friendly interview on The O'Reilly Factor, where Bill O'Reilly practically begged him to) has never bad mouthed the current administration (or his many other detractors during the years). Compare that to the "current political climate" where everything is _still_ somehow his fault...


----------



## hold_fast (30 Nov 2010)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One thing I have noted is President Bush, despite multiple opportunities (including a friendly interview on The O'Reilly Factor, where Bill O'Reilly practically begged him to) has never bad mouthed the current administration (or his many other detractors during the years). Compare that to the "current political climate" where everything is _still_ somehow his fault...



Just because Jack is a respectful boy who minds his manners at dinnertime doesn't mean he plays nice at school.
You can be respectful, honourable, polite, and yet still be a complete twit.


----------



## jhk87 (30 Nov 2010)

I would hardly say that the current political climate pins everything on GWB. Mr. Obama seems to be at fault for everything for both not giving enough stimulus and spending money on the economy (as opposed, say, to bombing the Middle East.)

The rather toxic atmosphere of American politics, spurred on by a reactionary religious right, has been simmering for some time now. And given GWB's ongoing problems with the English language, I seriously doubt he penned the work himself.

Good on him, though, for maintaining the general tradition among ex-presidents for not being a douche and generally confining himself to selling books and acting as the _cause celebre_ for such acitivites as raising money for Haiti.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Nov 2010)

jhk87 said:
			
		

> I would hardly say that the current political climate pins everything on GWB. Mr. Obama seems to be at fault for everything for both not giving enough stimulus and spending money on the economy (as opposed, say, to bombing the Middle East.)
> 
> The rather toxic atmosphere of American politics, spurred on by a reactionary religious right, has been simmering for some time now. And given GWB's ongoing problems with the English language, I seriously doubt he penned the work himself.
> 
> Good on him, though, for maintaining the general tradition among ex-presidents for not being a douche and generally confining himself to selling books and acting as the _cause celebre_ for such acitivites as raising money for Haiti.



The toxic atmosphere is the result of the left's politics of "personal destruction".The left controls the media,trade unions and the government. Their enemies are attacked in the media and sometimes the unions bus in members to picket the house of a target. All the trademarks of a totalitarian entity.The left and their radical anti-american agenda is far more frightening to average folk and help to swell the Tea Party movement.


----------



## hold_fast (30 Nov 2010)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The toxic atmosphere is the result of the left's politics of "personal destruction".The left controls the media,trade unions and the government. Their enemies are attacked in the media and sometimes the unions bus in members to picket the house of a target. All the trademarks of a totalitarian entity.The left and their radical anti-american agenda is far more frightening to average folk and help to swell the Tea Party movement.




Oh, yes, certainly!
Watch out for their Zionism and radical gay agendas! NWO! UFO! Roswell!

Jesus.


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2010)

The "Left" controls the media?!  Please.  That's quite a whopper.  The "Left" doesn't have a propaganda machine that pumps out lies incessantly like Fox "News".  The closest thing to that might reasonably be assesses as MSNBC which has a few very, very good commentators.  Or perhaps NPR, the right's latest target, which has nowhere near the influence Fox News does.  It's a sad comment on the state of the media in America when it's comedians and satirists doing much of the calling out of people like Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, and a host of other propagandists.  It's noteworthy that there's a fairly significant imbalance between the number of times these folks wind up with lies being called out on factchecking websites of various descriptions.  Frankly, I'm amazed that any intelligent person listens to them, because it's so obvious that they have nothing to offer except strange conspiracy theories, half-cocked arguments, etc.

Part of the right's big strategy seems to allow media to erode in quality and to dumb down the voting public so that they start to accept lies as truth.  They're polishing their messages about extensions of completely unaffordable tax cuts right now, building them around the completely ridiculous Laffer Curve argument that tax cuts will somehow a) stimulate job creation and b) actually increase - or at least not change - tax revenue.  That's been demonstrated to be false repeatedly.  Trickle down doesn't work, period.

Then they argue that extending (miserly) unemployment benefits to the so called "99'ers" whose benefits are running out must be paid for.  So, borrow from China to fund a handout to millionaires and billionaires, but not to carry on something that keeps some people from slipping into abject poverty AND happens to be extremely stimulative.  Why?  Those wealthy folks don't spend their tax cuts generally, not nearly to the extent that UI benefits are immediately spent back into the economy.

See, what I've found with the American rabid right in particular (through their blogs, their twitter feeds, etc) seems to prove some very wise observations of a particularly ominous regime in history they seem hell-bent on recreating - "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."  This seems to be an alarming trend in American politics in particular of late.

Sadly, they seem to prove a great thinker I enjoy right, John Stuart Mill: "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

As for Decision Points, it was highlighted that Bush has been very careful not to attack the current administration, and that's good of him.  I actually don't have much animosity for him, he was clearly just a pawn of much more sinister folks.





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The toxic atmosphere is the result of the left's politics of "personal destruction".The left controls the media,trade unions and the government. Their enemies are attacked in the media and sometimes the unions bus in members to picket the house of a target. All the trademarks of a totalitarian entity.The left and their radical anti-american agenda is far more frightening to average folk and help to swell the Tea Party movement.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2010)

Well, Godwin has made an appearance, apparently:


> See, what I've found with the American rabid right in particular (through their blogs, their twitter feeds, etc) seems to prove some very wise observations of a particularly ominous regime in history they seem hell-bent on recreating - "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."  This seems to be an alarming trend in American politics in particular of late.






> And given GWB's ongoing problems with the English language, I seriously doubt he penned the work himself.


GWB isn't exactly the greatest orator the planet has ever seen; however, he's not exactly illiterate.  I believe he has an MBA, but I may be mistaken.


----------



## TheHead (30 Nov 2010)

This is the pathetic state politics has turned into in both our countries.  The right does nothing but attack the left and the left does nothing but attack the right.    Everyone is to blame but themselves and no one has an ounce of accountablity.  I do agree with the above posters though the right has their own media.  Even though the opinion pieces on Fox News are absolute jokes and it's a wonder people watch shit like Bill O, Hannity and Glen Beck.  The comment that the left controls the media is right out to lunch.  

Anyways judge Bush how you will.  He may not be the best speaker but he was far from a moron like most lambast him as.


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Well, Godwin has made an appearance, apparently:
> GWB isn't exactly the greatest orator the planet has ever seen; however, he's not exactly illiterate.  I believe he has an MBA, but I may be mistaken.



Godwin aside, the reality is that that is EXACTLY what is happening.  Beck is probably the biggest perpetrator.  His delusional ideas about how the world works are hilarious, except that people believe him.  His pseudo-televangelist style is really just bizarre.  I did get a kick of of "Manchurian Lunatic", Jon Stewart's rather hilarious takedown of him.  It is, however, fearsome that he is essentially working to rewrite American history in the vision of an obscure Mormon nutbar by the name of W. Cleon Skousen, and creating some gigantic conspiracy to support his claims.

Limbaugh, well, I don't think too many people take him seriously, at least I hope not, because he's just... well, I won't even start.  I cannot believe that people listen to the crap he spews.  I can't believe people buy advertising on it...  Actually, they don't to a great extent in the case of Beck - some 300 advertisers have dropped ads on his show.  Don't know about Rush.  The guy's "arguments" and claims are often both ridiculous, and more importantly, well-divorced from fact and reality - it's a great propaganda machine, and it's delivering voters into the hands of a rather corporatist looking conservative movement.

The whole thing is disturbing, trying to make all these claims about some kind of neo-Marxism(?!), debating the President's religion (as if that matters, according to the Constitution these clowns claim to hold so sacred, it doesn't), etc.  They're even trying to redefine the concept of the political spectrum to move fascism somehow to the left, synonymous with "socialism", "Marxism", "communism", and their new buzzword, "progressivism".  Not so... but people are buying this.  The American voting public is being dumbed down and propagandized in a way not perhaps not seen since... well... you know.


----------



## TheHead (30 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Well, Godwin has made an appearance, apparently:
> GWB isn't exactly the greatest orator the planet has ever seen; however, he's not exactly illiterate.  I believe he has an MBA, but I may be mistaken.



He does have a MBA at Harvard.  He is actually the only President to have earned one, but I may be msitaken.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Godwin aside, the reality is that that is EXACTLY what is happening.  Beck is probably the biggest perpetrator.  His delusional ideas about how the world works are hilarious, except that people believe him.  His pseudo-televangelist style is really just bizarre.  I did get a kick of of "Manchurian Lunatic", Jon Stewart's rather hilarious takedown of him.  It is, however, fearsome that he is essentially working to rewrite American history in the vision of an obscure Mormon nutbar by the name of W. Cleon Skousen, and creating some gigantic conspiracy to support his claims.
> 
> Limbaugh, well, I don't think too many people take him seriously, at least I hope not, because he's just... well, I won't even start.  I cannot believe that people listen to the crap he spews.  I can't believe people buy advertising on it...  Actually, they don't to a great extent in the case of Beck - some 300 advertisers have dropped ads on his show.  Don't know about Rush.  The guy's "arguments" and claims are often both ridiculous, and more importantly, well-divorced from fact and reality - it's a great propaganda machine, and it's delivering voters into the hands of a rather corporatist looking conservative movement.
> 
> The whole thing is disturbing, trying to make all these claims about some kind of neo-Marxism(?!), debating the President's religion (as if that matters, according to the Constitution these clowns claim to hold so sacred, it doesn't), etc.  They're even trying to redefine the concept of the political spectrum to move fascism somehow to the left, synonymous with "socialism", "Marxism", "communism", and their new buzzword, "progressivism".  Not so... but people are buying this.


Earlier, someone made an accusation that I had made an ad hominem attack.  This is a perfect example of ad hominem, in case that poster is looking for an example.


			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> The American voting public is being dumbed down and propagandized in a way not perhaps not seen since... well... you know.




Since this time, perhaps?


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2010)

Attacking the man isn't the point - the point is that the message, the entire set of ideas being propagated is poisonous to the very idea of the political process, and frankly, it comes almost entirely from the right of the spectrum.  In fact, I would opine that Obama's biggest problem is that he's trying to play nice when he should just bash on with what he wants to do and can the idea of bipartisanship, because it's becoming clear that the GOP idea of "compromise" is when they get their way.  The hypocrisy emerging from their camp is staggering, particularly the tax cuts/UI thing I referred to above.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Earlier, someone made an accusation that I had made an ad hominem attack.  This is a perfect example of ad hominem, in case that poster is looking for an example.
> 
> Take a look at Media Matters For America.  Yeah, tend to be branded a liberal organization, but the fact is that what they comment on is these folks, in their own words - and they do their homework.  They cite their sources, and it's pretty bulletproof.  Look at factcheck.org, or politifact.org, non-partisan organizations that research the claims of everyone across the spectrum.  Look where the more glaring "pants on fire" lies come from.  Sometimes it's innocuous, stupid comments (Rush is particularly famous for these, things like "Obama wants to ban circumcision", or "ban fishing", or whatever), sometimes it's mischaracterizations of entire issues (like net neutrality, and Glenn Beck's rather incomprehensible tirade against a food safety bill which passed the US Senate today with bi-partisan support).
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2010)

OK, we get it.  The right is "loony, wrong and damaging" to the political process.  Let us all sit around and listen as the Minstrel Class* of society tell us all how to act, vote and more importantly, believe, because apparently dissent ist verboten.  And voting anything but Democrat is a sign of mental weakness, apparently.  I say "damn the opposition" and just go forward with your ideas, Obama.  I mean, what do the voters know?

*Actors, Singers and other entertainment "elite".


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Nov 2010)

Can I paraphrase you, Redeye?
I'm going to anyways.


"The right are a bunch of ravenous, retarded Nazi's who accuse left-leaners of being communists trying to destroy America. I can't believe anyone takes them seriously. They're the ones destroying America, and the world."


 Of course! How come I never saw this before??


----------



## TheHead (30 Nov 2010)

He never said either of those  :


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Can I paraphrase you, Redeye?
> I'm going to anyways.
> 
> 
> ...





			
				TheHead said:
			
		

> He never said either of those  :






> Godwin aside, the reality is that that is EXACTLY what is happening.  Beck is probably the biggest perpetrator.  His delusional ideas about how the world works are hilarious, except that people believe him.  His pseudo-televangelist style is really just bizarre.  I did get a kick of of "Manchurian Lunatic", Jon Stewart's rather hilarious takedown of him.  It is, however, fearsome that he is essentially working to rewrite American history in the vision of an obscure Mormon nutbar by the name of W. Cleon Skousen, and creating some gigantic conspiracy to support his claims.
> 
> Limbaugh, well, I don't think too many people take him seriously, at least I hope not, because he's just... well, I won't even start.  I cannot believe that people listen to the crap he spews.  I can't believe people buy advertising on it...  Actually, they don't to a great extent in the case of Beck - some 300 advertisers have dropped ads on his show.  Don't know about Rush.  The guy's "arguments" and claims are often both ridiculous, and more importantly, well-divorced from fact and reality - it's a great propaganda machine, and it's delivering voters into the hands of a rather corporatist looking conservative movement.
> 
> The whole thing is disturbing, trying to make all these claims about some kind of neo-Marxism(?!), debating the President's religion (as if that matters, according to the Constitution these clowns claim to hold so sacred, it doesn't), etc.  They're even trying to redefine the concept of the political spectrum to move fascism somehow to the left, synonymous with "socialism", "Marxism", "communism", and their new buzzword, "progressivism".  Not so... but people are buying this.



No, he didn't say it verbatim.  Sapplicant was paraphrasing.  For what it's worth, fascism _is _ more "left" than "right": bigger government, socialist, state control over everything, etc and so forth.

Anyway, it's unfair to label one side as "delusional" and the other as "enlightened", no matter which side you prefer.  Sadly, Redeye described Beck's ideas as delusional.  The other side wasn't portrayed (unless we count Jon Stewart, who was described as hilarious).  "They", "They", "They".

I guess I'm one of the dumb hicks who "buys" some of their ideas, such as the left/fascism "thing".  I'll just retreat to my trailer, turn on Beck (from Fox, not the musical artist) and if that fails, I'll turn on Oprah so I can find out how I'm supposed to vote.


----------



## Sapplicant (30 Nov 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'll turn on Oprah so I can find out how I'm supposed to vote.




She's lost all credibility ever since the "Million Little Pieces" fiasco, and getting mauled by Tom Cruise. *SMART* people learn their politics and voting tricks via talking dogs from Rhode Island.


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Nov 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> He never said either of those  :



I think that sums my past comments quite well. ;D


----------



## Redeye (1 Dec 2010)

For what it's worth, fascism actually sits neither "left" or "right" because it draws from both ends of the spectrum, but I might suggest that the traditional "allies" of the left were some of the most persecuted by fascist regimes, and it's the traits of ultranationalism, xenophobia, and subservience to mythical "free markets" that tends to take hold in states that become fascist.  Similarly, there becomes a need to vilify one's opponents in order to justify subversion of democratic processes, and that is something that FRINGES of the right seem to be doing... Of course, the same could be said of some aspects of the far left as well, though they don't have a massive machine like Fox "News" pushing their message for them.

Frankly, TV has a point - there are people with delusional ideas on the left, but can anyone name any of them?  Probably not.  Why?  Because while they're just as fringe, they aren't getting the media play.  I'll hypothesize that this is the reason that the right has to play up their big "Red Scare" show on people who are slightly left-of-centre.

What's more telling is that their big arguments against any given policy seem to be based on wild mischaracterizations of those policies.  Look at Beck's attack on the food safety bill that passed yesterday.  Look at his slanderous attack on George Soros (and yes, it's slander to knowingly spread false information about someone, I'm kind of disappointed that Soros hasn't sued him, but his justification is probably to make sure he doesn't give Beck even more media attention, and it's not like he needs the money).  Look at Beck and Limbaugh's complete misunderstanding of the concept of Net Neutrality.  Look at how Neil Cavuto got into an argument on his show disputing the impact of tax cuts (that every dollar in cuts only brings back $0.30, torpedoing the right's argument that tax cuts are stimulative), despite the fact that the research on the matter is clear.

I find it telling, as well, that some "engagements" on these shows which purport to be "fair and balanced" degenerate rather quickly into any dissenting opinion being shouted down by the hosts (BillO being rather famous for this), whereas I seem to have a hard time finding examples of that on other networks like MSNBC.

The problem as I see it has less to do with ideology and more to do with impact on process.  A democratic society requires a strong civil society - that is, a public who are engaged, who are informed, who can discuss the issues of the day, and can do so armed with enough facts to make reasonable decisions, whatever they may be.  That is breaking down in America - and it's starting to happen in Canada as well, and will spread - because what's being discussed is no longer facts, it's so heavily spun that any such discourse is well divorced from reality.

The thing of it is, that if people had the inclination to do their own homework as it were, to scratch the surface of the claims, they'd see they're nonsense, but not enough people are doing that, so the lies propagated so commonly become accepted by some as canon, when nothing at all could be further from the truth.  So people then potentially are casting votes not based on any sort of informed participation, but purely on hearing what they want delivered by self-described "rodeo clowns" (that was Beck, incidentally).


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> there are people with delusional ideas on the left, but can anyone name any of them?  Probably not.  Why?  Because while they're just as fringe, they aren't getting the media play.




You may want to re-think that one.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, fascism actually sits neither "left" or "right" because it draws from both ends of the spectrum, but I might suggest that the traditional "allies" of the left were some of the most persecuted by fascist regimes, and it's the traits of ultranationalism, xenophobia, and subservience to mythical "free markets" that tends to take hold in states that become fascist.  Similarly, there becomes a need to vilify one's opponents in order to justify subversion of democratic processes, and that is something that FRINGES of the right seem to be doing... Of course, the same could be said of some aspects of the far left as well, though they don't have a massive machine like Fox "News" pushing their message for them.
> 
> Frankly, TV has a point - there are people with delusional ideas on the left, but can anyone name any of them?  Probably not.  Why?  Because while they're just as fringe, they aren't getting the media play.  I'll hypothesize that this is the reason that the right has to play up their big "Red Scare" show on people who are slightly left-of-centre.
> 
> ...



 :


----------



## Redeye (1 Dec 2010)

Really?  Name me the left's answer to Glenn Beck?  To Bill O'Reilly?

The closest you might come up with, conceivably, is Keith Olbermann.  The thing is that while he has a rather distinctive style and has no bones about taking on those he opposes, he will call out anyone where appropriate.  On the odd occasion he's been called out for misrepresenting something, he's retracted it.  There's a marked difference.

Despite Fox's fair and balanced claims, I'd say MSNBC has that down far better (though, they do undermine their position by having Pat Buchanan as their "token right" guy sometimes).  There's a reason that right wing candidates avoid the media, especially them, because their journalists do their jobs and hold their feet to the fire.



			
				Sapplicant said:
			
		

> You may want to re-think that one.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Really?  Name me the left's answer to Glenn Beck?  To Bill O'Reilly?


Canadian university professors.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Really?  Name me the left's answer to Glenn Beck?  To Bill O'Reilly?


----------



## Redeye (1 Dec 2010)

Respectfully, you'll have to forgive me for dismissing both your answers.

Journeyman, as you well know, no one really cares what university professors say about anything.    And they don't host TV programs or radio shows.

Sapplicant, Layton's a politician.  Not the same thing as a pundit/"journalist".


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Respectfully, you'll have to forgive me for dismissing both your answers.


How very left-of-centre of you


----------



## Bass ackwards (1 Dec 2010)

In fairness to Redeye, he's asking for an answer to American political commentators who have radio or television shows.
I can't think of anyone in the American left who is anywhere near as high profile as those two, but isn't that more a question of ratings ? 
That fact that not many people are listening to Randi Rhodes (or whoever) doesn't mean she doesn't have an equal platform to speak from -it just means a significantly larger portion of the American public are more interested in what Beck or O'Reilly have to say.
That's the free market at work, non ? 

It's pretty well established that the right dominates talk radio.
But what about the entertainment industry ? ("minstrel media" -I like that). They hold considerable sway over what people believe and how they vote. You don't see too many right wing answers to Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Oprah Winfrey, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone -hell virtually _anyone_ in Hollywood.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Dec 2010)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> In fairness to Redeye...


I haven't the slightest interest in being fair to _Redeye_. 
But after several years' abuse, he seems to be OK with that.   ;D


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2010)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Sapplicant, Layton's a politician.  Not the same thing as a pundit/"journalist".




Fine.







Respectfully, you'll have to forgive me for dismissing your dismissal.


----------



## TheHead (1 Dec 2010)

James Carville is the best we could come up with?   Keith Olbermann,Joy Bayer or Bill Maher would have been a slightly better pick.   Even though those three don't even come close to how toxic the rights "opinion" jockeys are.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2010)

TheHead said:
			
		

> James Carville is the best we could come up with?   Keith Olbermann,Joy Bayer or Bill Maher would have been a slightly better pick.   Even though those three don't even come close to how toxic the rights "opinion" jockeys are.




And arsenic isn't as toxic as cyanide. They'll both kill you dead though.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Dec 2010)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> And arsenic isn't as toxic as cyanide. They'll both kill you dead though.



Depends on quantities.    >


----------



## DBA (1 Dec 2010)

Rhetoric we agree with is seen as artful, thoughtful, brilliant and direct telling of the "truth". Rhetoric we disagree with is seen as simplistic, distorted, pandering, lies, a pox on the earth, an evil to be fought etc etc. The degree to which it is seen as good or bad tends to be in proportion to how we view the underlying choices. The ability of rhetoric to win over reasoned argument and logic has been pondered for thousands of years, as has it's ability to lead the less wary astray. That however assumes one argument is correct and the other wrong which for a lot of the choices we have today is very simplistic and even framing the question in such a form is done through rhetoric not reasoned argument and logic. 

This is why somebody listening to Limbaugh/Colbert/others making simplistic arguments ridiculing Limbaugh/Colbert/others for making simplistic arguments can feel enlightened. For those in the middle it all sounds like simplistic trash. 

I am no fan of some of the decisions G.W. Bush made but the man himself I have no complaints about. Nobody can make all perfect choices in real situations. The book gives some insights into the man and the decisions.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2010)

Back to the actual topic, is anyone here _reading_ Decision Points?

The issue of President Bush apparently not receiving information (i.e. being "blindsided") is very important; how is the Chief Executive supposed to make correct decisions (on any topic) if there are no clear lines of communication? This issue is actually touched on in Martin Van Crevald's book "Command in War", so it is not particular to the administration. I'm pretty sure you could also find examples in business books and case studies of companies which have gotten into trouble as well.

So is the problem residing in personalities, infighting among bureaucracies, factions with political agendas (I believe there was a lot of that, the now redacted National Intelligence Estimate which claimed Iran was no longer working on a nuclear weapon was a pretty blatant example) or the sheer size of the government apparatus which prevents the clear passage of information?


----------

