Bush Says: "The Iraqis Owe Us a Debt of Gratitude"

[Liberal]

@Miller

So, someone reading a book of nonfiction isn’t allowed to come to a different interpretation of the facts presented in the book than the one arrived at by the person who collected those facts? As I understand that passage, Bremer has collected a bunch of data that Bremer thinks paints Bush as “vigorous and decisive.” Galbraith, reading the book, thinks the data paints Bush as “superficial and weak,” and says so in his review. Certainly, an important part of reviewing a non-fiction book is deciding if the author has accurately and honestly dervied his conclusions from the data he supplies. Galbraith thinks that Bremer’s conclusions are not accurate and/or honest. What’s objectionable about that?

Nothing is objectionable about that. It’s not even objectionable that no other review (that I’ve found so far, out of four) has come to the same conclusion as the ironically tagged Galbraith.

I can simultaneously believe that the reviewer is a partisan hack while not really caring that he is. My objections were these: (1) presentation of the review by the poster here as evidence of something Bush had actually done when it was only evidence of the reviewer’s interpretation; (2) trimming of the reviewer’s paragraph, leaving out the topic sentence altogether; and (3) the poster manipulating reason to support a conclusion already drawn.

I don’t give a rat’s ass if the reviewer wants to draw conclusions from Bremer’s journal. I just don’t want the review given any sort of credence with respect to any actual fact.

[RTFirefly]

@Liberal

What I “claimed” was that the reviewer, a notorious anti-Bush polemicist, gave his interpretation of the book which, from the quote you supplied, wasn’t at all clear. I supplied the beginning part of the paragraph which you left out, and which shows his interpretation to be a direct contradiction of Bremer’s own words.

AFAICT, the reviewer was claiming that the specific observations Bremer made about his meeting with Bush contradicted Bremer’s more general statement, and found the statements about specifics more reliable, as most of us would.

Why can’t you, for once, argue about the points I make instead of the points you wish I had made?

You can make whatever points you want, as long as you don’t present them as rebuttals to points others make. But if you do present them as rebuttals, then the points you make only matter to the extent that they actually, you know, rebut.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Spezza

Has anybody read the comments at the bottom of the article?

I am afraid of Americans.

Freepers scare me more than terrorists. I think there might at least be a small possibility that I could reason with a member of al Qaeda. Freepers are just insane zealots. I really hope they’re not representative but my fear is that they are. My in-laws have a lot of that same attitude. There’s a lot of people who think we’re in a holy war against Islam.