T Nation

GWB: Pick Your Adjective

Bush does a lot of questionable things. His administration does a lot of questionable things.

I know we have a lot of cheerleaders here, and you can play too, but I don’t think history will look fondly on Bush, regardless of the clamor of his fawning followers.

My guess for the adjective that will become historically attached to Bush is “reckless”.

A man in his position, representing such power and ability to influence world affairs, should probably exercise a little more forethought and have a little more respect for the voting public.

I’ll go with abominable.

“Clueless” would be the adjective that I would use. I believe that Bush is kind of the “Village Idiot” and that several people, Cheney, Wolfowitz, and other neo-con ideologues have exploited his naivete. At a moment of complexity, what we got was the simplistic response of the Maybury Machiavellians

“Shameless” would be another apt adjective. The neo-con “experiment” has failed and it’s time to bring the soldiers home and admit the whole thing was nothing but “sound and fury”. Instead more American soldiers will be slaughtered so that Bush can try and save face.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
“Shameless” would be another apt adjective. The neo-con “experiment” has failed and it’s time to bring the soldiers home and admit the whole thing was nothing but “sound and fury”. Instead more American soldiers will be slaughtered so that Bush can try and save face.[/quote]

Given the outright manipulations of information and spread of misinformation, shameless, especially with respect to standing behind and lying about administration activities and failed initiatives, is a good one.

I’d also point to Iraq as support for my own choice of adjective. I guess, since Iraq will be such a large part of his legacy, all adjectives will have to be applicable to it.

Anyway, the US is in Iraq now because Colin Powell was right. Specifically, the US entered Iraq because it wanted to. Now, the US is in Iraq because it pretty much has to be.

All arguing about whether or not the US should have gone into Iraq aside, I don’t think that many right wing cheerleaders can sidestep the fact that they are now stuck in something they would rather not be in.

Leading your country into such a situation, especially with prior warning readily available, seems like a good example of reckless behavior to me. Bush is the poster child for why a president can’t just do whatever he wants with a consequences be damned attitude.

retired

Loyal.

JeffR

P.S. If I’m a cheerleader, then lixy, orion, and petey are the “SNAKES.”

[quote]JeffR wrote:
timmay
[/quote]

Jerffy, that begs the question, loyal “to what”?

It’s too early to start pinning labels on W’s legacy.

If future presidents stick it out and build Iraq into a stable, secular, Westernized Republic, then W will go down as one of the better Presidents in the history of the U.S…

If they tuck tail and run, then W will be regarded as a failure.

I might choose “idealist” (being a little generous, here). I think W had a good grasp on the big picture, and he had a clear idea of what he wanted as an end-result in Iraq, but he greatly underestimated the resistance he would face (both domestic and foreign), and he mismanaged the small details that have put a big dent in his plans.

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
I think W had a good grasp on the big picture, and he had a clear idea of what he wanted as an end-result in Iraq, but he greatly underestimated the resistance he would face (both domestic and foreign), and he mismanaged the small details that have put a big dent in his plans.[/quote]

Too bad he didn’t read the Army War College Iraq Report before going in. It summed up exactly what would happen.

I’ll go with… “incompetent” because “criminally negligent” is two words.

Menstrual.

He put in about 5 days of work per month he’s been in office, so…

(Luckily for us, too)

[quote]pookie wrote:
Menstrual.
He put in about 5 days of work per month he’s been in office, so…

[/quote]

Right, but those were a hell of a five days.

Day 1 Read story (with lots-o-pictures)to children and hid out in bombshelter.

Day 2 Declared War on Iraq

Day 3 Drove the national debt into the stratosphere and wrecked the future of the dollar.

Day 4 Didn’t sign Kyoto and put the brakes stem-cell research. Also declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.

Day 5 Nominated a couple of right-wing judges to the Supreme Court

[quote]entheogens wrote:
pookie wrote:
Menstrual.
He put in about 5 days of work per month he’s been in office, so…

Right, but those were a hell of a five days.

Day 1 Read story (with lots-o-pictures)to children and hid out in bombshelter.

Day 2 Declared War on Iraq

Day 3 Drove the national debt into the stratosphere and wrecked the future of the dollar.

Day 4 Didn’t sign Kyoto and put the brakes stem-cell research. Also declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq.

Day 5 Nominated a couple of right-wing judges to the Supreme Court

[/quote]

Every one of those nonadjectives was both mean-spirited and either false, the correct path to take if you have a functional brainstem, or semi-true.

Terrible post.

JeffR

Incompetent.

I would have to go with dangerous, or incompetent.

Maybe dangerously incompetent.

Or… simply just, “Shameful”.

Or maybe, “embarrassing.”

I think there’s too many.

Seinfeld.

That sums up all the events so far.

“Globalist Puppet”

Disingenous.

He passed himself off as a conservative, then ignored the conservative agenda: term limits, a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and so forth.

He didn’t have the strength of character to get the spineless Republicans to pass the conservative agenda. They thought they could keep their jobs by mimicing the Dem/Lib/Scum.

So much for our future…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Disingenous.

He passed himself off as a conservative, then ignored the conservative agenda: term limits, a constitutional balanced budget amendment, and so forth.
[/quote]

Wow, HH. I was trying to think of that one word adjective summing up how he was a tax and spender in conservative clothing. You did great. Another, more harsh and deliberate term… I’ll go with:

LIAR

[quote]vroom wrote:
JeffR wrote:
timmay

Jerffy, that begs the question, loyal “to what”?[/quote]

It doesn’t “beg any questions”. Learn how to fucking speak English.

http://begthequestion.info/

[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
It’s too early to start pinning labels on W’s legacy.

If future presidents stick it out and build Iraq into a stable, secular, Westernized Republic, then W will go down as one of the better Presidents in the history of the U.S…

If they tuck tail and run, then W will be regarded as a failure.

I might choose “idealist” (being a little generous, here). I think W had a good grasp on the big picture, and he had a clear idea of what he wanted as an end-result in Iraq, but he greatly underestimated the resistance he would face (both domestic and foreign), and he mismanaged the small details that have put a big dent in his plans.[/quote]

A-fucking-men.
I couldn’t agree more. I am not saying he rates as positive, not rating negative. Incomplete. Time will tell.