Timeline for What does ‘Receive’ mean in ‘Bush did not always receive a timely consideration of his option'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 7, 2011 at 8:10 | vote | accept | Yoichi Oishi | ||
| Feb 4, 2011 at 15:00 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi | Eureka！ I came to realize that the object of ‘Receive’ here is (a timely) ‘Consideration’ (of his option) by Others, not Bush’s own option, and quick and effective ‘Implementation’ (of his decision) by Others. Now it makes sense. Thanks a lot for your suggestion. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 13:00 | comment | added | Dexter | You can read more of the additional context at the Telegraph: telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/…. The section where he makes the quote you've highlighted, he is talking about Bush's decision making - "[Rumsfield] depicts Bush as presiding over a national security process that was marked by incoherent decision-making." It's in this context that I think he continues to talk about Bush's relationship to his advisors. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 12:57 | comment | added | Dexter | In my opinion, it is wrong to interpret this as Bush being slow to accept Rumsfield's recommendation. There's a lot of implied context in the sentence, but I read it as "Bush did not receive a timely consideration of his options [by his advisors]", or "[Bush's advisors] did not provide him timely assistance" | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 10:32 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi | Dexter, then again Ramsfeld' statement starts to confuse me. In short, Bush did not receive 'consideration of his own option, nor implementation of 'his own decision, - Isn't it again, self-contradictory? Beside, there is no mention of 'Bush's advisors' but for Rumsfeld by himself in the above quote. It is more comfortable for me to interprete this sentence as portraying Bush wasn't always eager to accept or implement Rumsfeld's recommendation. Am I wrong? | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 10:20 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi | Dexter, then again Ramsfeld' statement start to confuse me. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 8:53 | comment | added | Dexter | @Yoichi - I do not think that Rumsfield is talking about his own decisions or options, but rather talking about how Bush's advisors treated Bush. Bush is definitely the subject of this sentence, not Rumsfield. | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 6:01 | comment | added | Yoichi Oishi | Whitman. So ‘His option’ here was ‘Rumsfeld’s option’ and ‘Decision he made’ was ‘Decision that Rumsfeld made,’ not ‘Bush’s option’ and ‘Bush’s own decision.’ Then its make sence to me. I took them first respectively for ‘Bush’s option’ and ‘Bushe’s decision,’ and thought it’s self-contradictry that Bush didn’t receive his own option and decision (or square with his own option and decision) by himself . It’s much easier for me to understand if the subject be reversed as “His (Rumsfeld’s) timely consideration nor effective implementation (plans) were not received by Bush.” | |
| Feb 4, 2011 at 1:08 | history | answered | pseudosudo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |