[Roger Slater]

When a 93-year old man in a wheelchair grabs some toosh while saying, with a goofy smile, "I'm David Cop-a-feel," and no one reported such behavior for the first 90 years of his life, I think it's fair enough to write it off to a bit of dementia setting in toward the end.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Roger Slater

When a 93-year old man in a wheelchair grabs some toosh while saying, with a goofy smile, "I'm David Cop-a-feel," and no one reported such behavior for the first 90 years of his life, I think it's fair enough to write it off to a bit of dementia setting in toward the end.

While it feels trivial to comment on this when more substantial issues are raised in this thread and in Bush's life:

What was reported about a powerful man during the first 90 years of Bush's life (and, to a lesser extent, today) isn't necessarily the whole story.

Men, including me, aren't the right ones to determine whether it's fair to write off such allegations.

[Roger Slater]

True, but it does seem, as Jim, says, that "the Me Toos cut him some slack," perhaps because many of them (including women) have had experience watching the way extremely old people in nursing homes often behave as their minds go. And I do feel that we would have heard at least one or two stories of similar behavior from his first 90 years if that was the way he tended to behave, rather than story after story of his being a perfect gentleman in all his personal interactions (as opposed to his generally horrendous and ungentlemanly policy choices).

[Mark McDonnell]

Amid all the inevitable hoo-ha, I wonder if anyone actually listened to the links that Patrick included in his initial post. They really are beautiful. I recommend forgetting about Bush, turning all the lights off and contemplating your own mortality while they wail away in the background. Now that's perspective.

[Erik Olson]

Ummm.‘Hoo-ha’ seems like a needlessly combative, embittered, and disparaging way to gloss over, let alone enter, the whole philosophical discussion preceding, if I may say so. How about not an either-or fallacy? Can we not do both, please? Oh, wait, I already have.

Anywho, for my part, I am most interested in the principles at play as would determine conduct. Everyone is, I reckon, to decide for themselves where the line is to be drawn of who has deserved funerary deference and propriety, not bound to heed such for every leader who passes sans discretion.

[Daniel Kemper]

Wars are not possible to conduct with precision, particularly when the enemy delights in human shields. We'll never actually know the degree of involvement of those who died (especially in the ubiquitous persecutions) the fog of war being what it is. That war is arguably the best ever conducted, including the end-game, which given the subsequent decisions of his son, was stunningly wise. The much higher count of victims of Sadaam without his post-war leash (ironically, including Iranians/Persians) are quite happy for what we did, as I think any Utilitarian would have to be as well.

Under his guidance we developed unheard of precision- and continue to be unique among powers for putting such energy into being sparing and selective when conducting war.

That said, as a veteran, I object to the unavoidable logic that when we bemoan civilian casualties more than soldiers, we are also saying that soldiers' lives count less- all because they wear a uniform... that's a kind of racism as well. Wearing a uniform, for service or from draft- a cause beyond their control, in either case service ought to make their lives more precious, not less. If one followed similar lines of logic. In fact, along those lines, what value does a civilian really add-- by virtue of civilian status? But patience to prevent such murmurs soon replies... All are created equal-- equal value.

As far as dissing a man for one tv ad, I'd love some political balance (I watch both Michael Moore documentaries and Dinesh D'Souza) and I'd love some balance in assessing a man's life. He was a good, good man.

[Roger Slater]

If someone saves one person's life and then murders another, he's still a murderer. We don't average the good and the bad together and call it a wash. I have no doubt that Bush had many admirable qualities, especially in his personal life and his dealings with his friends and his civility toward colleagues. I'm willing to accept the testimony of those who knew him in that regard, and he deserves credit for that. But many of the flaws people have spoken of in this thread are simply too dire and awful for any suggestion that the good part erases the bad. Ultimately, it makes no difference to the country or the world whether he was nice to his family or polite and charming to his secretary. For those of us who didn't know him personally, that has nothing to do with his legacy. The bad lives on, the good is interred with his bones.

[Orwn Acra]

Daniel, the fiction section is here: https://www.ablemuse.com/erato/forumdisplay.php?f=18

[Mark McDonnell]

Ummm.‘Hoo-ha’ seems like a needlessly combative, embittered, and disparaging way to gloss over, let alone enter, the whole philosophical discussion preceding, if I may say so.

Sorry Erik, I really wasn't intending any of those things. I think I was going for charmingly light-hearted. Damn. Failed again.

I didn't mean to be dismissive of the thread. It's interesting, just not one I feel particularly qualified to join in with, not having given Bush Snr much thought for many years. God knows though I've involved myself in much hoo and indeed ha here myself. In general fwiw I say, sure, speak ill of the dead with impunity if you feel strongly about it. Having been reminded of the man here, he seems to merit it.

[Erik Olson]

No worries, Mark. Our intent transmitted through this thing called the Net sans voice, wink, gesticulation, all the rest, is easy to be mistaken; the Net is prone to not capturing some dimension or other as we intended. Means nothing that is not bound to happen to the best of us.