Plagiarist-in-Chief, Fabricator-in-Chief

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In my dismissal of Bush's Decision Points as predictable, superficial, legacy-boosting self-aggrandizement yesterday, I neglected to mention that, as HuffPo's Ryan Grim reports, the book contains a good deal of plagiarism and fabrication:

When Crown Publishing inked a deal with George W. Bush for his memoirs, the publisher knew it wasn't getting Faulkner. But the book, at least, promises "gripping, never-before-heard detail" about the former president's key decisions, offering to bring readers "aboard Air Force One on 9/11, in the hours after America's most devastating attack since Pearl Harbor; at the head of the table in the Situation Room in the moments before launching the war in Iraq," and other undisclosed and weighty locations.

Crown also got a mash-up of worn-out anecdotes from previously published memoirs written by his subordinates, from which Bush lifts quotes word for word, passing them off as his own recollections. He took equal license in lifting from nonfiction books about his presidency or newspaper or magazine articles from the time. Far from shedding light on how the president approached the crucial "decision points" of his presidency, the clip jobs illuminate something shallower and less surprising about Bush's character: He's too lazy to write his own memoir. 

For example:

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

It's an anecdote that Bush -- or, rather, his minions -- probably lifted straight a "Googleable free intro" to a New York Review of Books story by Ahmed Rashid.

And another:

In a separate case of scene fabrication, though, Bush writes of a comment made by his rival John McCain as if it was said to him directly. "The surge gave [McCain] a chance to create distance between us, but he didn't take it. He had been a longtime advocate of more troops in Iraq, and he supported the new strategy wholeheartedly. "I cannot guarantee success," he said, "But I can guarantee failure if we don't adopt this new strategy." A dramatic and untold coming-together of longtime rivals? Well, not so much. It comes straight from a Washington Post story. McCain was talking to reporters, not to Bush.

So basically:

In most instances of Bush's literary swiping, he was at least present for the scene. But the point of a memoir is that it is the author's version of events. Bush's book is a collection of other people's versions of events. But that's not what Bush promises readers. "Decision Points is based primarily on my recollections. With help from researchers, I have confirmed my account with government documents, personal interviews, news reports, and other sources, some of which remain classified," he offers. Bush, in his memoir, confesses to authorizing waterboarding, which is a war crime, so the lifting of a few passages might seem like a minor infraction. But Bush's laziness undermines the historical value of the memoir. Bush "recollects" -- in a more literal sense of the term -- quotes by pulling his and others verbatim from other books, calling into question what he genuinely remembers from the time and casting doubt on any conclusions he draws about what his mindset was at the time.

He even "appears to draw heavily from several of Bob Woodward's books and also from Robert Draper's 'Dead Certain'. The Bush White House called the books' accuracy into question when they were initially published."

Should we be outraged? Yes, I suppose so. Should Bush be called out on and be made to account for these transgressions? Of course. But, honestly, did we really expect much more from the guy?

And isn't this really just further confirmation of who he is.

Sarah Palin, Newt-hungry plagiarist

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Did Sarah rip off Newt? Well, yes, so it would seem. HuffPo's Geoffrey Dunn does an admirable job comparing her speech last week in Anchorage with his co-written article from 2005, "Republicans Need to Relearn Lessons of the Reagan Revolution."

Now, to be fair, Sarah did reference that article in her speech: "Recently, Newt Gingrich, he had written a good article about Reagan..."

Though it wasn't "recent" (except in geological terms), Newt didn't write it alone (Sarah didn't bother to mention co-author Craig Shirley), and Sarah expressed herself, as usual, poorly (and, in grammatical terms, incorrectly), but at least she mentioned it. (The speech reminds us that Sarah's English is horrible.)

The problem, as Dunn explains, is that, following the initial citation (she mentions the article one again, later in the speech, but then gets it wrong, quoting a line that isn't there), "Palin continued on with her speech, using her own words while seamlessly quoting almost verbatim from the Gingrich/Shirley piece, multiple times, without citing it."

And it's pretty obvious -- and not just a line or two here and there.

So there is little doubt, if any, that Sarah plagiarized Newt.

I'd say it's appalling (and it clearly is), but this is Sarah Palin we're talking about, and I'm just not sure we should expect any more from her than this. She's not exactly a deep thinker with anything new to say, so it should come as no surprise that she steals from her right-wing ilk. This is just an obvious example of it.

The thing is, even when there isn't such obvious plagiarism, most conservatives drink from the same shallow pool of stagnant ideology anyway, which is why it always sounds so familiar, and so canned.

Newt praised Reagan? Sarah praised Reagan? No kidding. This is a movement that has run out of ideas, a party that continues to run on failure.

This was just Sarah being Sarah. Typical for her, and typical for conservatives generally. I'd say she's worse than most, but she probably isn't.