Why would a man who prides himself on his discretion, who has been so careful not to denigrate or comment on Barack Obama, be so loose-lipped with the junior staff at the White House?
It doesn’t make sense and is totally out of character.
As a biographer, I’ve learned that one way to fact-check something written about a person is to see if that material is out of character, or rings true.
When I first started researching the life of Wyatt Earp I discovered there were two versions of his life. He was either good or evil with nothing in between. I soon learned that writing nasty and untrue things about Wyatt Earp was a cottage industry, treasured by liberal revisionists.
While writing my book, TRAVESTY: Frank Waters’ Earp Agenda Exposed, I learned that the only way to debunk the agenda of someone who wants to destroy a person is to go to original sources and debunk the the writer. This being the case, no matter how badly conservatives wish it to be, Matt Latimer does not pass the smell test. If he lied about GWB not knowing who Sarah Palin was when she was nominated, what else has he lied about? Two sources have already said he lied about Palin – respected sources.
But then, that does not matter. I’ve learned actual facts do not matter to intellectually dishonest conservatives who are more interested in damning anyone who does not measure up to their demands blackmail for 100% purity. They’ve become a bunch of petty little spoiled brats who have a tantrum anytime they are crossed.
Contrary to popular opinion, 5 Nobel Prize nominations, and critical acclaim, I was able to prove that Frank Waters, and alleged American literary “Icon” was nothing but a lying hack. I think this will soon happen with Matt Latimer.
What I do find repulsive is the fact that few Republicans and very few conservatives are coming to the defense of George W. Bush. I don’t know which is worse, Latimer’s lies or the perfidy of the far right.
Remember all the way back in 2008 when Scott McLellen’s book denigrating GWB came out? Remember how all the usual conservative suspects jumped all over it, denigrating George W. Bush? Remember how they were proved wrong? It looks like the same thing is happening again.
I wish I knew why conservatives hated George W. Bush so much, but then again the detested Ronald Reagan (refer to the Pink Flamingo – May, 2008 for more information). They detest Lindsey. They detest anyone they cannot control. It’s that simple. They could never control George W. Bush because he has a mind of his own.
Matt Latimer has a new book out that basically turns George W. Bush into some sort of jerk. Naturally all the usual conservative suspects who hate GWB are piling on, without bothering to check the source. When the Wonkette, no friend of GWB disses the book, you know it has a problem.
“…It could have been an interesting read, but here’s the problem: it’s not. It is one of the shittiest pieces of writing, ever, or at least since Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Did you know that not a single person in the White House knew anything about anything except for smug mid-level stenographer “Matt Latimer,” according to Matt Latimer?…”
But – that isn’t stopping the Bush-Haters from coming out in full force.
Dana Perino proves that Latimer is lying about what GWB is alleged to have said about Sarah Palin. If he lied about that, what else did he lie about?
“...In an interview to air Tuesday morning on Fox News Chanel’s “Fox and Friends,” Bush says of Palin: She’s had executive experience, and that’s what it takes to be a capable person here in Washington, D.C., in the executive branch. As a two-term governor from Texas, Bush should know. “I find her to be a very dynamic, capable, smart woman,” said Bush, adding, “It really says that John McCain made an inspired pick.”…”
In the Corner, Dana Perino wrote:
“…Seems that every administration goes through this — yes, even the Obamas will have someone take advantage of the career opportunity of a lifetime to try to feather their own nest at someone else’s expense — no matter how far-fetched their story may be.
For example, he writes that President Bush didn’t know who Sarah Palin was. That’s rubbish — Bush had just met Palin the previous month in Alaska, and he mentioned that to me literally two seconds after McCain made his announcement. So much of what Latimer claims the president said don’t ring true to me. I was with the president for whole days at a time, through thick and thin, and I never heard him say things like that about others. And I don’t think he’s ever even said the word “keister.” C’mon….”
Newsmax (I refuse to link because I don’t trust it) reports that Latimer said he felt Obama would be a disaster fighting terror. Aside from the fact that he is, there is something that does not ring true. George W. Bush was the “enforcer” when his father was POTUS, taking people out who had ‘loose lips’ or laced discretion. He has an overwhelming sense of the dignity of the office. The comments Latimer attributes to GWB do not ring true, but that doesn’t bother the far right. They’ve always hated him and Latimer proves their hatred is correct, even if he is wrong. Facts don’t matter. “Truth” does.
George W. Bush is known by his discretion. Why would he say such indiscreet things in front of someone like Latimer. It is completely out of character.
What I do find so amazing is the fact that the far right continues to accept and make excuse for the likes of Pat Buchanan, but yet they damn George W. Bush. They fail to even admit that they’ve been hood-winked by one of the worst racists and supporters of Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand. But – they will believe anything when it comes to damning George W. Bush. The Far Right will believe anything vile about people who they think are “PURE” conservatives, but then castigate and damn anyone who happens to prove them wrong. They are so intellectually dishonest, they will believe anything bad about George W. Bush.
Ed Morrissey is going to have some egg on his face if he doesn’t retract his Hot Air slam of GWB. Latimer is already being proved to be a liar. Jason Rescher has more to say:
But Jason Recher, who served as special assistant to President Bush and as a traveling aide to Palin during the campaign, said the former President was well aware of Palin — especially since the two met in person in Alaska just three weeks before Palin was added to the Republican ticket.
During a stopover in Fairbanks on the way to the Beijing Olympics last August, Recher said Bush met with Palin and even made a knowing reference to her rising reputation in the Republican Party.
“The president was fully aware of who Sarah Palin was,” Recher told CNN. “Even so much that when he greeted the governor and Todd in Fairbanks during a re-fueling stop on the way to the Beijing Olympics, he threw open his arms and said “Madam Vice President!'”
“He was very aware of her rising-star status and who she was and everything about her, even down to the fact that she recently had given birth to Trig,” Recher said.
After Palin became the vice presidential nominee, Recher said the White House loaned out both he and Laura Bush’s photographer Shealah Craighead to the McCain campaign to help staff Palin and her family.
Recher said Bush and Palin had a warm relationship and talked multiple times throughout the campaign, including after a large campaign rally near Orlando in September and after the Vice Presidential debate in October.
“There is no air, no space between them,” Recher said. “Sarah Palin is a big fan of George Bush, and she has said publicly she was proud he was Commander-in-Chief when her son Track was in Iraq.”
Recher, who traveled with President Bush nearly every day for the final three years of his presidency, questioned just how plugged-in Latimer was at the White House.
“I think that most people that used to work at the White House would be hard pressed to pick him out of a lineup,” Recher said. “Nobody knows who he is. When people heard he was writing a book the most common reaction has been, ‘Who?'”
Maybe the problem isn’t George W. Bush but the prejudice of the far right.
“...By the time Reagan left office, he had remade the GOP in his own image. Movement conservatives tended to view his successor, George H.W. Bush, as an insufficiently pure torchbearer of the Reagan legacy. But in 2000, something curious happened: The party establishment, including numerous Reaganauts, coalesced around the first Bush’s son as the Great Conservative Hope. No less an eminence than Reagan secretary of state George Shultz, retired to think-tank life at the Hoover Institution, went around assuring skeptical conservatives that “this young man” from Texas was a worthy inheritor of the Reagan mantle.
On some issues he has been. On taxes and judicial appointments in particular, Bush’s conservatism has been constant and effective. He undid the Clinton-era tax increases (that in turn had undone some of Reagan’s cuts) across the board, so that nearly every taxpayer in the country received a break.
By conservative lights, federal court appointments are even more important; tax cuts can be repealed, but federal judgeships are for life. Here too, Bush has justified the faith conservatives placed in him — and then some. His two Supreme Court appointees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., made many of the party faithful even happier than Reagan’s less predictable troika of Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Antonin Scalia. When he leaves office, Bush will have appointed approximately one third of the judges on the federal bench, tilting it indisputably to the right. Terry Eastland, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration and now publisher of the Weekly Standard, calls Bush’s judicial appointments his “strongest achievement.”
…if we considered just the domestic front, the Bush-Reagan comparisons would be more flattering to the younger man. But in the wake of U.S. anger and activism after 9/11, Bush led the nation into a preventive war against Iraq. Notwithstanding the complicity of a malleable Congress (including virtually all the Democrats with presidential aspirations, save Sen. Barack Obama), this was Bush’s war. We doubt it would have been Reagan’s. Despite the widespread support for the 2003 invasion among Reaganites in Congress, our research has convinced us that Reagan — prone to lower-key measures such as arming the Nicaraguan contras, burned from sending the Marines to Lebanon in 1983 and generally inclined to see the United States as a shining exemplar rather than a mailed conqueror — would not have undertaken Bush’s nation-building war. We can’t know how Iraq will turn out either, but it is decisively shaping near-term perceptions of Bush’s presidency.”
…That is all in peril now. “It took 30 years to build the Reagan coalition,” Catholic University political scientist John Kenneth White wrote on the eve of the 2006 midterm elections. “It has taken George W. Bush just two years to destroy it.”
This harsh judgment attributes too much to one man. For one thing, Reagan’s role in helping end the Cold War removed one of the pillars that united conservatives and made their philosophy palatable to a majority of Americans. For another, Bush is hardly responsible for every legislative miscalculation, grotesque budget “earmark” or outright bribe accepted by congressional Republicans during his tenure — all key factors in helping drive Americans away from the GOP….”