Comments on: Natan Sharansky: Bush Darling, Neo-Con Hero http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2005/02/01/natan-sharansky/ Essays on politics, culture and ideas about Israeli-Arab peace and world music Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:37:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Montag http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2005/02/01/natan-sharansky/#comment-622 Montag Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://box22.bluehost.com/~richard2/wordpress/?p=653#comment-622 Bush's statement, "I felt like this book confirmed what I believe," is eerie, because I predicted that Bush would say, "It's a great book because it's like he knows what I'm thinking!" Yet more evidence of Bush's intellectual capacities. Remember, Bush said he doesn't read newspapers because his aides tell him all he needs to know, thus avoiding "the filter" of the media. I would remind you of the story of the two antagonistic French intellectuals meeting on the street. One enthusiastically congratulates the other on his newspaper article on some burning question of the day. He explains that far from converting him, it served to confirm him more soundly in his previous stand, because in order to prove to himself that the article was "rubbish" he had to produce effective counter-arguments for every seemingly ridiculous point made. When the second intellectual unhappily pronounces his article to be a failure, the first corrects him, "But my dear fellow, of course your article was a success--it forced me to think!" Bush’s statement, “I felt like this book confirmed what I believe,”
is eerie, because I predicted that Bush would say, “It’s a great book
because it’s like he knows what I’m thinking!” Yet more evidence of
Bush’s intellectual capacities. Remember, Bush said he doesn’t read
newspapers because his aides tell him all he needs to know, thus
avoiding “the filter” of the media.

I would remind you of the story of the two antagonistic French
intellectuals meeting on the street. One enthusiastically
congratulates the other on his newspaper article on some burning
question of the day. He explains that far from converting him, it
served to confirm him more soundly in his previous stand, because
in order to prove to himself that the article was “rubbish” he had
to produce effective counter-arguments for every seemingly ridiculous
point made. When the second intellectual unhappily pronounces his
article to be a failure, the first corrects him, “But my dear fellow,
of course your article was a success–it forced me to think!”

]]>