Rating: 
Summary: Excellent read
Review: This is a very interesting book than grants us great insight into the personality and religious beliefs of our current president. I recommend it to anyone, regardless of political or religious views, who wishes to better understand George W. Bush and his goals.
I presume that most of the people giving this book a low rating have a political bias. Disregard those reviews. This is an excellent read for anyone who wishes to learn more about President Bush.
Rating:
Summary: Great book full of well-organized material
Review: This is an excellent resource for anyone interested in assessing the political, social, and religious positions of President George W. Bush. The material is presented in a well-organized format of themed speeches, which read very nicely and flow very logically. This is one of the most inspirational books I've read, from one of the most inspirational presidents of our time.
Rating:
Summary: "out of the overflow of the heart, a man speaks"
Review: This is not only a wonderful book, but a necessary one, to truly understand the mind of our 43rd president, and the issues that concern him, no matter what one's political persuasion. It is good to know from the source, instead of from the endless fountain of propaganda that spews forth from both sides of the aisle.
There is an introduction by editor Thomas M. Freiling, on how he went about compiling this collection of 34 speeches and talks that vary in tone and expression from formal to those with the cadence of a relaxed conversation, that read as though being spoken rather than written.Each chapter is headed with the date of the speech, but not the place it was given, but some are obvious, as the one given in England in November, 2003, which is one of the longest, at 15 pages. Most of the chapters average 4-5 pages, and many touch on controversial subjects, like the rights of unborn children, and the current debate over stem cell research. "On Respect for Life" is a thoughtful analysis on the crucial questions that are a part of the complex issue of stem cells, and President Bush talks about both sides of subject, and why and how he came to his final decision, when he confronted the "fundamental questions about the beginnings of life, and the ends of science".
"On Cuba and Castro" from May 20, 2002, is another chapter that is important to read. "On Justice", from July 2001, includes a welcoming address from Pope John Paul II, and is one of the eight chapters that pre-date the horror that changed our country, and President Bush's task in office. "On Resolve", from September 14, 2001, is a profound and moving chapter on those events, that is also life-affirming, and full of hope for the future.
As it is written in Matthew 12:34, "out of the overflow of the heart, a man speaks", and this is an essential book to read, if one wants to know the heart of George W. Bush, and the ideas that motivate him.
Rating:
Summary: watch for liberal agression
Review: Watch for reviews from those liberals who are livid with their hatred of Bush. Reviews are supposed to present your opinion of the book, not the subject. If someone spews hateful rhetoric about Bush, they have obviously not read the book and have no legitimate criticism of it. Some may also give invalid criticisms by attacking something not related to the purpose of the book. This is a valuable resource for understanding the role of the President's faith in his life and in his work. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the politics or faith of Bush, this book successfully achieves the author's goal of using Bush's public speeches to show his true colors. This is an intriguing look at the President. If you're filled with hate, don't waste your time spouting off because any critical thinker can see through your political bias. If you're really interested in the topic, check out this book.
Rating:
Summary: Republican Leadership
Review: What has Bush accomplished with this war?
Please read and answer the following 5 questions. Copy and paste them into your reply. I don't care if you are a liberal or a conservative or a republican or a democrat. I just want answers because too often people repeat commentary by misinformed biased sources, and the way I have laid out these questions, there is no personal bias involved. It's just a simple format that will prove a few points and will probably even surprise the questionnaire taker and hopefully teach a thing or two.
Bush-At-War Questionnaire:
1.) Did you ever have even a small belief that Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Houssein may have been linked in the 9-11 attack?
2.) Even if you feel they may not have been directly linked, do you think that Osama ever spoke to Saddam on any given situation?
3.) Do you think that even if Osama and Saddam are ultimately proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had no meetings and have no common terrorist allies, that Osama and his terrorists were being protected in unknown locations under Saddam's regime---thereby making Saddam a safe harbor for terrorists?
4.) Did you ever believe that Saddam had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?
5.) Even if you believe Saddam never had stockpiles of weapons, (or maybe you believe he once did and they are now destroyed), did you consider Saddam to be a threat to the free world? You may have considered Saddam to be threat because of his possible links to Osama, because of him possibly providing a safe haven for terrorist activities, or because he himself had mass murdered thousands of his own people.
Did you answer "yes" or "maybe" to any? If you did, than you have no business in protesting this war or disrespectfully putting down Bush.
The point I am trying to make is that even if there was ZERO link between Bin Laden and Saddam and even if there is ZERO proof of "weapons of mass destruction," this war was justified and very necessary. For the record, there is no way to say there is without a shadow of a doubt, 100% no chance that there was such a link (even a very small one) or that some weapons didn't exist at one point. And even a 1% chance that they did was justification enough to take down the regime. Certainly at the time before the war, the weapons inspectors and top government officials felt strongly about those two issues, as did most of the American people.
But the fact remains, it has been proven that Saddam and Osama spoke on more than one occasion (and even them simply saying "hello" to each other is enough of a link for me). And it's also been proven that Saddam was providing a safe haven for terrorist groups, and whether they were just any terrorist groups or those who may have operated with Osama, is there really a need to make a distinction?? This is a war on terror and Saddam was a terrorist who needed to be taken down. Just as all terrorist regimes must be taken down. And I don't want to hear about how there are other terrorist nations around the world that we didn't invade because the fact remains, this administration demanded that those other nations disarm and they did indeed disarm. We've had over 37 countries on our side in this war (with arguably our 2 strongest European allies in Blair and Berlusconi leading the forefront of eternal support). The toppling of the Saddam statue was quite a show of support for our presence there, and the capture of Saddam and the other thousands of terrorists who have been captured or killed indeed point to a huge amount of success...
We now must stay the course and continue in the liberation of the Iraqi people and the people of Afghanistan from the brutal Taliban regime and assist in the rebuilding of the nation and it's government. A change in leadership and a change in action would set us back and take away all of the accomplishments we made. So don't dare say this administration did not have a plan or that there were no accomplishments made. We had no choice but to go on the offensive and protect America and the free world as best as we could. And now, we must continue to do so, and the strides we've taken in eliminating so many of these terrorists have made things safer, and to say otherwise is simply incorrect.
These are black and white statements that do not need embellishment from a republican or a Bush supporter. And if you answered "yes" to even one of the questions in the opening of this essay, whether you are republican or democrat, than you have no basis for knocking the Bush Administration or questioning Bush's motives. And to believe any Michael Moore "oil conspiracy" propaganda is to truly label yourself a liberal who is always looking for a political spin and you will never see a justification for war under any circumstances, ever. Moore's way of thinking, along with the cop-out comeback of "would you send your son to fight in this war" anytime the issue arises is simply immature and irrelevant. We know war is terrible, but war was declared on the free world when 9-11 happened and it was our duty to try and stop anyone and anything from attempting to do such a thing again. And that's basically why we went to war when you get right down to it. The other things are really just secondary in the greater scheme of things. Where was Bill Clinton after the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center? What did he do? He probably went and got his first Lewinsky in the Oval Office.
|
