424 of 449 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency (Hardcover)
As a diehard Republican, I read this book very skeptically. The only reason Greenwald was able to convince me was because of the exhaustive research and sourcing he did. The book drew me in immediately and I couldn't put it down for the whole day. I highly recommend it for anyone who has slight doubts about Bush but is afraid like I was to challenge our GOP leadership. Greenwald has real guts to come out with a politically incorrect reality that we all must deal with.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 18 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 26, 2007 7:44:03 PM PDT
I really can respect Tom's honesty by recognizing and then admitting his was "fearful" to find that the GOP leaders in whom me had placed his confidence were undeserving of same. I don't like reading materials that conflict with my long-held beliefs. I listen to conservative talk radio about 33% of the time
and enjoy it but hate it. Lately though even the conservative radio hosts are abandoning the Bush Administration. There is a psychological term called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Most people if not all have experienced cognitive dissonance in varying degrees. To quote Wikipedia (since that's proven easier than my trying to describe it here) it "describes the uncomfortable tension that may or may not come from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. It is a sociological or psychological fact that when a person comes to realize that his or her publicly stated opinions are likely wrong, he or she and they then find information that the listener or is contrary" I appreciate the book review and now intend to read it. Good luck and thanks.
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 22, 2007 12:29:38 AM PDT
Midnight Midnighter says:
Tom, opinions that run counter to the party in power should hardly be termed "politically incorrect" - as if criticizing one's government could be anything but a patriotic exercise of one's 1st amendment rights.
Posted on Aug 29, 2007 12:53:43 PM PDT
The Mouse says:
Thanks for your honest review, Tom. I've read Greenwald's blog and will order his book.
Don't ever be afraid to challenge the leadership of any party. American citizens need to remember that their loyalty should be to their country, first and foremost.
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 17, 2007 6:49:27 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Dec 1, 2009 1:38:03 AM PST]
In reply to an earlier post on Sep 21, 2007 12:21:21 PM PDT
Liz Ellerbe says:
Bravo to you! I'm trying to think of the antonym of stubborness, but whatever it is, you have it, and it's rare.
In reply to an earlier post on Oct 5, 2007 10:31:55 PM PDT
I also am a long-time Republican, and have come to the conclusion that this thesis is probably correct. Bush seems to view the world in stark black vs. white terms. Whereby, the world today really is not like that. Bush famously said after 9/11, "I don't do nuance". Many of us Republicans applauded him for that (given the attack on our country, perhaps you can understand why). But many of us now think, maybe we need a president who "does nuance".
Posted on Nov 24, 2007 10:55:33 PM PST
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2008 9:12:25 AM PDT
Colin P. Davy says:
Donna, what I find so tragic is that the Republican Party has no way to kick out people who fail so abysmally to support the party's ideals, and who, in fact lead the party into error. Under the Westminster system, the parliamentary party can boot their "leader" out of office at any time during the parliamentary term.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2008 8:25:07 PM PDT
I don't know what Gore has to do with comments supposedly directed toward a review about a book about Bush, but dragging out the old internet canard, nearly 10 years later, when anyone who ever cared has had plenty of time to check the facts, sure is mighty tiresome.
Okay, so maybe he should have said it differently. Maybe the phrase "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" was an overstatement ... or was it?
How much of an overstatement you think it was pretty much all depends on whether you believe he might have assumed the concept "among elected officials" was a given that did not need to be stated, and whether or not you believe the Internet would be what it is today if it had never had significant government funding, or if that funding had come much later.
A review of the legislative record makes it amply clear that Gore was an early and major advocate in the Congress for pushing for and funding what later became the Internet before the term 'Internet' had even been coined. That is simply a fact.
As far back as the 1970s, Gore was promoting the notion of high speed telecommunications as an engine for economic growth and improvements pertaining to our public educational system. He seems to have been the first elected official that grasped that computer communications could have a profound impact on areas of culture and society other than science and scholarship.
Gore wrote about a national "data highway" as far back as 1986 and called for, in terms of funding for the NSF, support for basic research in computer networking. In 1987, he began making speeches and holding hearings in support of funding for high-performance computing and networking when nearly every other member of Congress was not only not doing this, but was not even all that inclined to listen.
Also in the 1980s, then Senator Gore urged government agencies to consolidate several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." In 1991, after having worked long and hard in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan's and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act. Sometimes dubbed the "Gore Act," this bill supported the National Research and Education Network initiative that became one of the major players in spreading the Internet beyond the field of computer science.
It's all in the Congressional record, sir.
Further, as Vice President, Gore championed continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives as well as supporting the release of the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it.
He was and remains a strong proponent of extending access to schools and libraries.
No other elected official, before or since, has been more engaged in helping to create the climate -- financial and intellectual -- for what has now become the thriving Internet we now know.
As for Gore's intelligence, something you would know if you knew anything at all is that sometimes people who are less than brilliant feel motivated to study harder to compensate. That's right. Not everybody who finds himself intellectually challenged is like Dubya. Anyone who knows Al Gore knows that nothing can be said about his time in Congress and in the White House that rings any more true than that he was studious. The man was almost infamous among his colleagues for the effort he put into informing himself.
So, in other words, on the subject of Al Gore and the Internet, and on the subject of his supposed lack of intellectual prowess, the time is long past due that ignorant partisan propagandists like you shut the *&! up!
(Actually, that the time is long past due to stop spouting your poisonous rhetoric about most of the other subjects you addressed could be as easily demonstrated, but I don't have the inclination.)
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2008 8:27:48 PM PDT
Er, actually, there is a way ...
It's called 'impeachment.'