On 18 Dec 2003 17:49:38 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flyboys (Was: Flyboys?)
From: Ed Rasimus

While the book was rather poor work, Bush may at least have written off on
the term Fly Boy all the way. Makes sense to me. The only other alternative
is
to assume that Bush reviewed the manuscriptt hastily and carelessly, What
think you?

Arthur Kramer

What I think, is that you haven't read the book. The description of
Bush' shoot down and recovery is only one small anecdote in the book,
which develops additional importance because of what George H. W. Bush
eventually became.

Are you saying the book is good because he became president?. Or if he never
became president the book would be bad? Or just what are you saying?

Arthur Kramer

The language seemed pretty clear when I wrote it. I didn't say the
book was good for any reason. It certainly wouldn't gain credibility
because he became president. But, the anecdote about a young Navy
aviator being shot down and rescued and the additional information
about the handling of prisoners in the area by the Japanese gains
historic importance because that aviator eventually became president.
(It's much like the importance of the PT-109 story because JFK became
president.)

If Bush had not become president, the book would not be better or
worse. I don't think it is a very good book, but the Bush anecdote is
only a small part of the story. President or not, I think the book is
marginal history, poorly written.

Similarly, I think that Steven Ambrose' coverage of B-24 operations
and his lionizing of George McGovern in Wild Blue is poor also. And it
would still be poor even if McGovern had become president.