Bush Plans “Authoritarian” History

Former President George W. Bush announced in Calgary yesterday that he is planning to write a memoir “so when the history of this administration is written at least there’s an authoritarian voice saying exactly what happened.”

Bush did not reveal if John Yoo would be the co-author.

Bush spoke to an “invited audience of Calgary businessmen,” according to a report in the Examiner.

The paper noted that “Bush was full of jokes throughout his speech.”

Since it was an “invited audience,” there were no awkward questions about torture or whether Bush expects to be indicted as a war criminal.
[h/t TAC]

32 thoughts on “Bush Plans “Authoritarian” History”

  1. Wow huge surprise that the epicenter of Canadian conservatism would have the war criminal to speak to an invite only for the pleasure of paying audience willing to hear the idiot speak. Canadian law and Canada’s obligations under International law dictates that he should have been apprehended and placed before the Hague for war crimes. Instead the fawning clowns endured his meanderings while the Canadian MPs and police forces refused to do what they are paid to do.

    Of course if what should have happened did happen – American forces would have obliterated Canada’s obsolescent and over-stretched military in mere minutes while enacting a 21st century version of Operation Eiche.

  2. Bush writing a book? We’re about to see if that old canard about monkeys randomly banging on a keyboard and coming up with a coherent work is true or not.

  3. I do think Bush is correct about one thing. I think historians will judge him as a “great” or “near great” President. Afterall, he did alot of things historians from the school that the state is God love. He started two wars that got alot of people killed, and he greatly expanded the size and scope of the Federal government. More specifically, he concentrated more power into the Executive branch of government. Thanks to Bush and a number of his predecesors stretching back to Woodrow Wilson the United States government is more similar to an elected dictatorship than a Constitutional Republic based upon a limited role for government. That is a record of achievement the coopted, government loving, bought and paid for Historians are sure to praise to high heaven.

    1. Ira

      All you write is true but I really feel that treason is in the mix here. Have any other presidents advocated publicly the need for world government like the Bushes ?

    2. Well, when the American Historical Association was surveyed a few years ago, most (85%) judged him the worst US president ever.

      Lester Ness

        1. Nope, Lincoln was the worst. It all started with him. Give Wilson the silver medal in this dubious competition and Shrub the bronze.

          Note to “Obvious Guy Says” and others: Please take advantage of the ability to use hyperlinks here. Though I knew of the Mussolini rescue, I’d never heard of the code name “Operation Eiche” and had to Google the phrase.

      1. Before we even know what comes after? A couple of terrorist attacks from now and those idiots will look like what they are.

    3. Bush’ importance, in the long run, will be that he revealed the secret of empire. Have a terrorist incident, start a war or two, and congress and the masses will let you amass autocratic powers. I was surprised that Bush volutarily left power.

      Zhu Bajie

    4. Brother,we will all submit to some kind of government,be it merely that of our own father – but I do respectfully defer to your insightful post. O where is the king the people love? No man can love cruelty and heartlessness.

  4. “limited role for gov’t” = ahistorical “Libertarian” idiotology substituted for law.

    The Founders/Framers NEVER spoke of “limited gov’t” or “small gov’t” — the closest to that was the rhetoric of the ANTI-Federalists, who LOST the argument. Rather, the Founders/Framers spoke in defense of a strong, central, Federal gov’t with the states SUBORDINATE thereto.

    And as for the “anti-statist” ANARCHISTS (“Libertarians”) who bash gov’t, while simultaneously “defending” the Founders/Framers by putting words in their mouths: the Founders/Framers, having established gov’ts/STATES, were STATISTS.

    1. Please don’t conflate “anarchism” with “libertarianism.” I realize that up until recently the terms were synonymous, but they certainly aren’t so now. This confusion does not help your argument and Libertarians will take umbrage at the unfair association.

      Of course as an anarchist, I don’t really care. I’m off to my daily bashing of our strong, central, federal government.

      Smash the state!

    2. Every anarchist I ever spoke to regarded the “Founding Fathers” as statists.

      As for the anti-Federalists, they lost the political contest but they didn’t lose the argument. Winning an election or otherwise getting one’s preferences “written into law” does not logically prove that one’s preferences are right.

  5. I’m sure that Bush’s “authoritarian” account of his presidency will offer many “unvaluable” insights.

    1. Personally, I’m hoping for a _Secret History_, bY a secretary or someone else who saw everything.

      Lester Ness

  6. wow, I can’t believe someone is actually willing to pay this piece of @$!#! money to speak. All bush did was destroy the national budget with his deficits, shatter the economy, rape the constitution and the american people, and embark us on endless wars in the middle east all based on his lies, none of which we can afford. Sure, we are moving in on 10% unemployment in the US, facing a worldwide depression. But hey, at least we have the world’s biggest embassy in Iraq! Yay!

    These people are not living in reality. Bush was a drunken brain dead fool. There are janitors and garbagemen who would make far better presidents.

    1. Many Canadians harbor a good deal of anti-American sentiment. Therefore, anyone who harms America might be viewed as some minor folk hero.

      Perhaps Bush is well-liked for having set in motion events leading to a massive humbling of those arrogant pests to the south.

      1. Canadians aren’t anti-American – they are anti-American government. There is a huge difference.

  7. So the former Chickenhawk-in-Chief had a rollicking good time addressing the Canadian businessmen. He was full of jokes throughout. Of course, the Iraqis he killed aren’t joking, nor are the people he tortured.

    Bush is an intellectual cipher. He’d better get help “writing” this book, or it’ll be as idiotic as he is.
    (Bovard’s suggestion of John Yoo is excellent–Yoo and Bush understand each other.)

  8. I would point out that that Canadian audience was strictly an invitation-only crowd. When you cherry-pick your audience it is easy to have a ‘rollicking good time’.

    1. Yeah, sort of like those 1950 and 1960’s TV game shows where an off-camera production stooge would hold up signs like “applause” or “door prizes” to get the audience to cheer at the right moment. Problem with Bush supporters is that they cannot read so they have to use picture signs.

Comments are closed.