Bush the Incompetent

So nice to see once-terrified journalists finally calling our idiot president on his depressing shortcomings. This article is absolutely precious.

Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it’s hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president’s defining attribute. Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things — particularly when most of them were the president’s own initiatives.

In numbing profusion, the newspapers are filled with litanies of screw-ups. Yesterday’s New York Times brought news of the first official assessment of our reconstruction efforts in Iraq, in which the government’s special inspector general depicted a policy beset, as Times reporter James Glanz put it, “by gross understaffing, a lack of technical expertise, bureaucratic infighting [and] secrecy.” At one point, rebuilding efforts were divided, bewilderingly and counterproductively, between the Army Corps of Engineers and, for projects involving water, the Navy. That’s when you’d think a president would make clear in no uncertain terms that bureaucratic turf battles would not be allowed to impede Iraq’s reconstruction. But then, the president had no guiding vision for how to rebuild Iraq — indeed, he went to war believing that such an undertaking really wouldn’t require much in the way of American treasure and American lives.

It gets worse. But as usual, no one’s going to listen, because we’re just too numb, too accustomed to failure on a vast scale to even take notice anymore. Read what he has to say about the Medicare “reform,” and you’ll see we’re totally screwed, 100-percent FUBAR. But Bush talks tough and walks with a (fake) swagger, while the Dems all sound like mealy-mouthed girly men who can’t agree on anything. And so Karl Rove will continue to rule the planet, while the tortured souls that are America’s liberals do the slow-roast in hell.

The Discussion: 26 Comments


January 25, 2006 @ 11:03 am | Comment

Gordon, you know I have a lot of respect for you, but honestly, what does it take for Bush supporters to honestly evaluate this Presidency for the monumental screw-up it’s become?

Or at least not to give us flack for talking about it?

January 25, 2006 @ 11:40 am | Comment

Did you hear Bush on TV yesterday? When asked about how he was fcuking up Tony Blair’s rep with the Iraq war et al, he started talking about “the great country of Britain”.

At least he didn’t call us the United States of England or something………….

January 25, 2006 @ 3:13 pm | Comment

I’m not saying there aren’t problems with the Bush Presidency. Hell, look at what happened on the border with Mexico the other day. What will Bush do about it? Probably call for more “Guest Worker” permits.
Richard just has a tendency to go off on these
over-emotional tirades that remove any interest I have in debating the issue.

January 25, 2006 @ 5:10 pm | Comment

Gordon, one question: What do you think of the Medicar bill? Any thoughts up there, or just the usual Michelle Malkin policy of exuberant ignorance?

January 25, 2006 @ 5:11 pm | Comment

Gordon, you never address the issues. You just call them an emotional tirade. And you don’t realize all Michelle Malkin is is an emotional tirade. I at least argue and raise facts. You never do. Discuss the Medicare bill and the fact that it was chiselled by the drug companies. I dare you.

January 25, 2006 @ 5:42 pm | Comment

I agree wholeheartedly. I initially supported the Iraq war because I thought it will bring prosperity and democrasy to the Iraqi people. But what a fucked up job Bush did.! The problem is that most people expect incompetency from their government. That is what they are getting and will continue to get.

January 25, 2006 @ 7:06 pm | Comment

It’s too early to judge the Iraq war so summarily. It’s barely even arrived in historical terms. It is a mess now, for sure. There is a lot of change going on in Iraq.

Don’t forget most of the best presidents (and world leaders) in history were lambasted while they were in office. (Most of the worst were loved while they were in power.) The effects of leadership are usually not immediate. Leaders are not afraid to make unpopular decisions. By contrast, when a leader is driven by what people want to see, you cannot see their errors (which still exist, but are more pernicious).

On another note, personal attacks against George W. Bush are silly because you do not know him. I point out that they also achieve an effect opposite to what is intended. You are fortifying what you want to destroy. Do better. Or shutup. It’s boring.

Cheers! ๐Ÿ™‚

January 25, 2006 @ 8:40 pm | Comment

These are attacks on policy, on actual decisions. not personal. Unlike those made in 1998 against another, better US president. Tell us, what do you like about the Medicare bill, and how will history judge it? Tell us, we are all waiting eagerly.

January 25, 2006 @ 8:41 pm | Comment


To be honest, I haven’t even had a chance to look over the Medicare Bill. I have 17 credit hours this semester, Fraternity duties and student organization responsibilities. So not only have I not had time to look it over, I’m not really all that concerned about it.

Why? Because it’s no more the governments responsibility to provide Medicare than it is Social Security.

Please take a look at our Consitution and point out where the government is authorized or obligated to provide those programs. You can’t because they’re not.

Also, you’re lending further credibility to my assertion about your emotional tirades by trying to associate me with Michelle Malkin. Rarely, if ever, do I link to anything on her blog. In fact, I think I’ve only done so once, twice at the most.

I have a link to her site for my convenience. I think there are also a couple of links to a few democrat sites as well.

January 25, 2006 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

I do not like the Medicare bill. It is unfair to seniors. You will find no general argument with me about the merits of it. Except I *may* have more faith in privatization and competition and markets than you. Competition is a discvoery procedure. It’s logic uncovers new options that are unpredictable and impossible without a market. The Medicare stretches this otherwise good argument too far, in my opinion. I’d personally like to see more special treatment for seniors, more of a hybrid model.

On another note, if a criticism is ad hominem (e.g., “against another, better US president”) it is basically personal. I shouldn’t tell you to “stop making ad hominem attacks” because you can do what you want and I wish to soften the edge above, my post was too strident. Sorry for that. But this kind of talk prolongs the object of your disatisfaction. Oh, RE: 1998, a stand on principle (not personal) holds it is illegal to lie under oath. Period. I agree Clinton was smarter, handier, etc. I would probably like him personally (more than W) if I knew him. But in my view he was a more leader and less president.

You may be right and I may be wrong, but by an effort we may get get closer to the “truth.” (Popper)

January 25, 2006 @ 9:03 pm | Comment


I will agree, it is quite unfair to seniors and unfortunately my own grandmother is one of those it will affect.

I favor a cut-off from SS and Medicare. Granted, I’m not sure how to implement such a drastic policy, but damn, give me my money and let me invest it to take care of myself rather than continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Medicare is a joke anyway.

Richard, I’d be surprised if you even know how it works anyway, unless you’ve actually had to deal with someone close to you.

It’s not a free ride. Seniors have to pay for it and every time their SS raises, so does the cost of their Medicare. It’s a socialist program and it’s one that will end up going broke just like Social Security.

Sure, medicare is better than nothing, but it can be worse than an HMO. Seniors pay for it, but it’s benefits are severely limited.

January 25, 2006 @ 9:30 pm | Comment

Gordon, my parents have to deal with it, so I know some things. Are you aware of the plan’s architects going directly from writing the bill to becomie drug company lobbyists with immense salaries? Did you know the rules were bent so they could do this? Not surprisingly, you skip the horror story of how the bill was created and the new miseries it has inflicted, and just knock Medicare as socialist. Every time you’re confronted with bush’s tangible, definable misdeeds you change the subject and evade. No one is more emotional or outspoken when it comes to criticizing China than you. But as son as emotional criticism is focused on Bush, you dismiss it because it’s too “emotonal.” Even when that emotion is backed up with evidence, names and dates. It’s really pointless arguing with you about domestic issues.

January 25, 2006 @ 9:46 pm | Comment

Rarely, if ever, do I link to anything on her [Malkin’s] blog. In fact, I think I’ve only done so once, twice at the most.

I thought she used to prominent on your blogroll. If she wasn’t, then I take it back and apologize for the misunderstanding. I’ll point to Free Republic next time instead.

January 25, 2006 @ 9:50 pm | Comment


Richard, I don’t run from anything.

If I recall correctly, it’s you who alwasy says something like..oh I’m too physically exhausted to….blah blah blah..

You can’t lump someone into a boat just because of who they link to…I mean, hell, don’t we share mutual links? *snicker*

As for being emotional with my complaints of China…hardly. Forward and stern, yes. Emotional, no. Not even close.

January 25, 2006 @ 10:29 pm | Comment

BTW, I’m off to bed. (wouldn’t want my silence over the next few hours to be constituted as silence or running away).

January 25, 2006 @ 10:39 pm | Comment

Gordon, you never run away? ROTFLMAO!!! Check this out. Ouch!

January 25, 2006 @ 11:28 pm | Comment

I don’t support any Medicare bill by Democrats or Republicans…

But then again, I wasn’t born until 1984…when you’ve literally grown up in an age of abundant information and mobility and have never known any other world, these creaky state mechanisms seem like well-meaning but hopelessly inefficient anachronisms that will take our money and, with a wave of the magic incompetence wand, make it disappear.

Generation Y is not a fan of the New Deal..

January 26, 2006 @ 1:42 am | Comment

Nor should they be. The geezers ran off with all the loot, saw their $30,000 houses increase in value 500 percent (and much more), and see their social security check as a god-given right. Never mind that it’s on the backs of their kids, who will never see a dime. I’ve had fights with my own father about this, to no avail.

January 26, 2006 @ 3:18 am | Comment

Gordon said “..Because it’s no more the governments responsibility to provide Medicare than it is Social Security.”…

Which almost sounds reasonable, but what is the role of governments and elected representatives then? Why do people pay tax? And surcharges? And levies? And tarriffs? And licences? and the 10,000 other ways that our dollars trickle into the collective purse?

Billions and frigging squillions of dollars are being squandered and pocketed and swindled and wasted under your noses and people still point to welfare and community services and the older generation and so on as if they are the source of the problem.

As far as I’m concerned, the aged paid taxes all their lives and worked bloody hard for what they built. And they deserve to be looked after in old age anyway. Even the poorest third world communities do this.

If you want to look at what’s happened to “all the loot”, go read your own blog, Richard – you’re always writing about this stuff so clearly and intelligently. So I’m confused as to why you’d see it as something that the older generation has somehow “taken” from us. Our generation is WAY more culpable than the last by the look of how things are going… And I pity the poor bastards who are one or two generations down and will be left with the messes we’re making in our docile collective stupidity.

When will people wake up? What will it take?

January 26, 2006 @ 5:41 am | Comment

Ouch? Ouch what?

I simply made my comment and moved on, forgetting about that thread, but now that you’ve brought it up…I’ll get to it after class.

January 26, 2006 @ 6:43 am | Comment

I just see a lot of greed on the part of the AARP, ands very little consideration of our workijng young people. This strikes me as an injustice, further enrichiching those who’ve had all the breaks.

January 26, 2006 @ 6:44 am | Comment

Yeah Gordon, right. ๐Ÿ™‚

January 26, 2006 @ 6:50 am | Comment

Sorry Richard, You may think it is the responsibility of the younger generation to support the previous, but I do not.

The only way to stop this process of bankrupting one generation to pay for another is to put a stop to it altogether, imo.

January 26, 2006 @ 7:21 am | Comment

Gordon, are you crazy, or did you not get a word I wrote above?

The geezers ran off with all the loot, saw their $30,000 houses increase in value 500 percent (and much more), and see their social security check as a god-given right. Never mind that it’s on the backs of their kids, who will never see a dime. I’ve had fights with my own father about this, to no avail.

Arguing with you is singularly unproductive and irritating. Please use your mind. It’s a terrible thing to waste.

January 26, 2006 @ 7:23 am | Comment

“because it’s no more the governments responsibility to provide Medicare than it is Social Security.”

ha, ha, ha, ha, but it is government’s responsibility to invest $200 billion dollars in lockeed martin’s f35 joint strike fighters.

their beauty and performance beats my grandma’s drug needs any day.

January 31, 2006 @ 9:21 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.